►
From YouTube: Node js Package Maintenance meeting 7 April 2020
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
A
B
C
D
A
D
A
Okay,
yeah
so
well
so
we'll
start
on
the
on
the
top
and
then
we'll
just
have
that
one
as
the
last
one
again
with
all
for
items.
We
should
be
able
to
get
to
everything,
I
think
so,
okay,
if
that's
it
then
we'll
get
into
the
number
309,
which
is
governance,
models
and
methodologies
for
package
maintainer.
So
you
are
actually
the
author
of
this.
So
do
you
want
to
get
us
started
with
where
we're
at
in
this
discussion
or.
D
So,
thank
you.
Everybody
for
the
feedback
from
the
the
prior
meeting,
one
of
the
so-so
status
then,
and
since
then,
is
that
the
feedback
was
that
creating
like
a
little
table
of
contents
could
be
a
separate
action
item
that
could
encapsulate
some
of
the
work
that
I
had
put
together.
That
was
maybe
a
little
deviated
a
little
bit
from
the
original
topic
of
straight
governance
models,
of
which
some
great
examples
were
provided.
D
So
I
opened
an
issue
in
the
project
number
333,
with
basically
that
draft
of
a
table
of
contents
that
essentially
just
you
know
a
little
overview,
paragraph
of
the
motivations
of
the
working
group
itself
and
then
really
just
defers
out
to
all
the
existing
Docs,
either
in
various
draft
States
or
not
and
then
from
there.
So
basically
just
yeah
the
table
of
contents.
Is
there
so
just
curious?
What
the
thoughts
are
and
then
also
maybe
for
those
items
either
in
draft
or
missing
for
those
that
were
missing.
D
I
just
got
to
put
a
stub
in
place
and
wasn't
sure
we
would
want
to
break
those
out
to
individual
issues,
or
maybe
we
could
all
take
one
and
just
kind
of
contribute
to
it
over
next
few
weeks
or
whatever
and
but
so
yeah
the
the
table
of
contents.
Is
there
curious
thoughts
that
are
then
you
know
next
step
for
me
would
then
be
I
could
just
zero
in
on
just
the
governance
portion
for
the
next
meeting.
So
that's
that's.
Where
we're
at
there.
D
D
Yeah
I
mean
that
would
certainly
help
bring
the.
So
if
the
I
guess
the
pre-curved,
the
prerequisite
to
that
is,
is
the
table
of
contents
itself,
a
good
collection
of
topics
and
if
those
topics
and
kind
of
subtopics
you
know
jive
with
everybody
else,
then
I
think
the
next
step
would
be.
Let's
for
the
draft
in
particular,
the
documents
that
are
in
draft
you
know
I
would
I
guess.
Maybe
we
could
make
it
an
issue
for
each
one
and
then
they
could
all
be
worked
on
in
parallel
when
they're
resolved.
D
They
could
then
maybe
move
out
of
draft,
but
either
way
the
topics
are
there,
and
so
you
know
maybe
someone
looking
for
a
topic
sees
that
it's
empty.
Maybe
they
jump
into
that
and
I
was
thinking.
If
we
create
an
issue
for
each
draft,
we
could
put
a
link
to
the
issue
in
the
markdown
file,
so
anybody's.
Looking
like
oh,
this
is
a
done.
They
could.
You
maybe
be
prompted
to
so
yeah.
D
C
I
think
it
would
be
okay
to
land
this
without
having
filled
in
the
governance
and
the
code.
You
know,
I,
don't
know
that
we
have
to
tie
those
together.
We
should
you
know
they.
It
highlights
a
couple
of
important
things
like
the
code
of
conduct.
We
need
to
execute
on
Aesop,
but
I.
Don't
think
we
need
to
tie
this
particularly
to
it.
The
other
thing
that
it
did
make
me
remind
me
is
that
at
the
end
of
the
agenda,
Bleus
should
also
tag
on
discussing
the
pkgs
org.
C
D
C
F
A
A
A
D
A
D
A
C
So
yeah,
basically,
we've
got
approval
to
do
that.
The
by
default,
though
you
know,
if
we
just
extend
the
nodejs
project
sort
of
ownership
scope
to
include
pkgs
when
we
go
to
create
new
repo.
Well,
you
know
if
by
default
we
would
need
to
transfer
the
ogre
owners
to
be
the
same
or
owners
as
for
the
nodejs
organization,
and
if
we
needed
to
add
new
repos,
we
would
have
to
go
through
the
regular
process
that's
defined,
which
is
to
like
open
an
issue
in
the
amend,
have
one
of
those
or
or
go
or
iners.
C
You
know
created
on
a
request
so
for
if
that's
what
we
want
to
do,
that's
fine!
We
can
just
I
can
move
forward
with
trying
to
land
the
the
changes
to
the
governance
in
our
earlier
discussions.
My
understanding
is,
you
know
we
probably
wanted
to
ask
for
something
more
in
terms
of
having
some
responsibility
for
the
pkgs
or
delegated
to
the
package
maintenance
team.
C
In
that
case,
what
we
need
to
do
is
you
know,
capture
what
we
want
delegated
and
to
who
and
I
think
that's
where
my
comment
came
back
to
governance,
because
I
don't
think
we
can
say,
like
all
members
of
the
package
maintenance
team
can
have
the
rights
to
be
your
goals
right,
because
that
would
that
would
probably
be
a
bit
too
big
a
set
to
be
consistent
with
what
we're
doing,
at
least
in
the
rest
of
the
note
organization.
I.
A
But
that
said,
I
don't
think
we
want
to
go
toward
the
full
node
model,
which
is
admin
approval,
and
you
know
all
of
that
process.
So
I
think
what
we
need,
then,
is
a
codified
set
of
org
owners
on
pkgs
which
have
been
delegated
the
role
of
creating
repos
in
peak
AGGS.
Does
that
sound
like
the
neck
right
and.
C
I
think
we
need
the
governance,
which
is
makes
it
clear
how
people
become
those
people
right
because
that'll
be,
you
know,
we
can
basically
say-
and
it's
I
think
you
know
it
can
possibly
be
rolled
into
chartering.
The
package
maintenance
team-
and
you
know
the
Charter
one
of
its
roles
will
be
to
manage
the
pkgs
organization,
and
you
know
in
the
governance
for
the
for
the
that's
chartered.
It
would
be
and
like
there's
this
there's
people
who
can
get
into
these
roles
through
this
process
and
then
therefore
they're
the
ones
who
can
do
these
things.
C
A
I
agree
so
in
the
in
the
effort
of
making
it
as
open
as
we
can,
while
still
maintaining
you
know,
quality
and,
and
you
know,
ability
to
manage
it,
it
seems
to
like
a
pretty
simple
thing
would
be
make
it
there.
People
who
regularly
contribute
to
the
package
maintenance
working
group
today
as
just
the
default
list
and
when
I
say
regularly
I
mean
pretty
much
folks
who
are
on
this
call.
Today,
Greg.
A
Jordan,
Harbor
and
and
there's
a
few
other
folks
who
aren't
on
the
call
today
that
regularly
participate
and
then
saying
that
that
is
our
gating
function,
which
is
like
you
know
three
to
six
months
worth
of
regular
participation
in
the
package.
Maintenance
working
group
I
mean
that's.
What
I
would
propose
I
think
that's.
C
Really
something
like
that
I
think
it
needs
to
be
a
little
bit
more
of
a
formalized
process
of
you
know
here
are
the
requirements
and
then
the
existing
members
can
vote
in
a
new
person,
and
then
you
know
as
a
starting
point.
We
propose
these
people.
As
you
know,
people
who've
already
met
the
criteria.
F
In
terms
of
timelines,
and
just
do
that
yearly
at
the
same
time
that
the
other
voting
memberships
are
happening
and,
like,
let's
say
like
the
CPC
or
open
Jas,
just
to
like
make
it
all
at
the
same
time,
we
could
say
like
the
initial
set
could
be,
as
Wes
said
like
this
is
who
we
propose
to
begin
with
and
then,
like.
Let's
say,
you
know
potentially
rationalize
it
that
we'll
vote
or
there
will
be
some
sort
of
like
vote
happen
at
the
same
time
as
other
boats
are
happening.
F
C
I
would
almost
you
know
echo
that
that
we
could
like
from
the
membership.
We
could
elect
the
number
of
people
who
are
trusted
with
that
responsibility.
The
the
reason
I
go
for
that
as
well
as
that:
it's
not
just
creating
the
repo
but
there's
requirements
for
repos
in
the
organization.
In
terms
of
they,
you
know
we
need
to
have
a
code
of
conduct.
We
need
to
have
a
proper
license
so.
A
Okay,
so,
but
some
of
those
things
we
can
standardize
without
making
that
tied
to
the
repo
creation
right
so
I
think
the
the
repo
creation
is
really
just
an
administrative
task
right,
like
I,
don't
think
we're
gonna
tell
people
no
in
most
cases
like
know
that
that
prod
doesn't
belong
here.
Right
I
mean
no.
C
It's
it's
a
matter
of
confirming
that
there
is
a
license
file
like
making
sure
that
when
it
comes
in
its
got
all
the
things
that
we
need
for
it
to
be
a
project,
so
it's
not
necessarily
doing
it
but
like
we
want
it,
you
know.
If
something
came
in
and
the
license
was
GPL
we'd
have
to
say:
sorry
you
can't
have
it.
You
know
it's
got
to
be
one
of
the
foundation
approved
licenses
and
things
around
the
DCO.
We're
gonna
have
to
like
improve
our
our
sort
of
implementation.
C
Why
only
argument
would
be
not
to
throw
to
everybody
in
the
bucket,
but
the
people
who
said
yeah,
okay,
I
understand
what
those
are
I'm
happy
to
take
that
responsibility
of
doing
the
checks
and
so
I'm,
not
necessarily
an
exclusionary
thing,
but
more
of
an
opt-in
and
then
other
people.
If
they
want
to
create
when
they
can,
they
can
open
a
request
and
if
they
only
do
it
once
in
a
while,
they
don't
need
to
remember
what
all
the
things
they'd
have
to
check
all
right.
D
Eye
on
that,
so
just
a
matter
of
having
a
checklist
than
just
air.
Someone
is
kind
of
you
know
validating
that
like
so,
for
instance,
someone
made
a
great
point
in
the
the
comments
just
now.
If
there's
a
particular
repo
structure
that
should
be
followed,
then
you
can
make
like
a
template
for
that.
Possibly
right
so
seems
like
some
of
those
administrative
things
are
just
like
a
Google
Doc
issued
template
or
repo
template
away,
possibly
absolutely
yep.
So.
A
G
F
G
Then,
regarding
the
process
of
cooking
cooking
boy
yeah
can
we
can
we
just
get
a
doc
started
and,
let's
get
rolling?
The
only
thing
I'd
argue
is
that
maybe
early
voting
is
something
something
that
we
need
to
be
to
relax
a
little
bit,
but
we
can
maybe
get
a
starting
document
going
and
then
and
then
see
which
requirements
we
can
relax
and
have
them
sort
of
less
strict
in
terms
of
who
can
do
what
and
wins
yeah.
C
A
C
Think
if
we
are
going
to
be
like
asking
for
this,
the
package
maintenance
team
to
be
chartered
when
and
sort
of
transferred
that
or
that
responsibility
from
the
TSE.
It
would
make
sense
to
me
for
it
to
be
in
the
package
maintenance
area,
possibly
with
in
the
PKG
essaouira,
got
a
link
back
that
says
hey
if
you
want
to
ask
for
a
repo
being
opened
here.
Here's
the
governance
over
in
the
other
repo,
okay.
A
A
A
C
Next,
step
really
is
on
the
tooling
and
actually
I've
been
thinking
a
little
bit
about
this
III
really
would
love
to
find
some
time,
but
I
haven't
yet,
but
I
think
you
know
a
few
people.
My
thoughts
were
a
few
people
had
started
on
the
tooling
and
I
want
to
see
and
talk
to
them
before
I
you
know
jumped
in
if
I
did
find
time
to
top
date
them
or
whatever,
but
it's
kind
of
like
okay.
C
A
A
A
And,
let's
see
I
think
I,
don't
know
he
I,
don't
think
he
finished.
He
was
working
on
the
CLI
portion
of
this,
but
I
don't
know
how
much
he
finished
there
anyway.
Yeah.
Definitely
it
seems
like
that
is
the
next
step.
So
if
we
can
nail
down
this
checklist,
so
it's
PK
gjs,
slash,
support,
pull
request.
Number
one
is
adding
the
CLI
I
think.
If
we
have
that
I
think,
then
we
have
a
1.0
which
would
be.
C
A
It
was
updated
for
the
latest
version
and
that'll
make
sure
we
double-check
okay,
but
but
the
CLI
portion
was
just
you
know.
We
have
a
library
that
validates,
but
how
do
folks
use
the
library
they
probably
need
a
CLI
right
or
some
something
to
actually
call
in
their
their
library
on
their
libraries
to
make
sure
they're,
compatible
and
and
up-to-date
I?
Don't
know
how
you
all
see
us
using
the
tool
and
recommending
library
authors
use
in
tooling
Oh?
Actually,
we
probably
need
a
generator
too
right.
A
F
I
think
this
goes
hand
in
hand
with
the
MPM
in
it
pkg
yep
discussion.
So
that's
the
create
package
at
pkg,
a
package
namespace
that
I'm
trying
to
get
for
for
this
group.
So
I
don't
have
an
update
on
that
yet,
but
I
think
that's
something.
I'm
gonna
try
to
look
at
right
now.
Actually
so
I'll
try
to
have
enough.
They
buy
em
today
and.
C
F
C
A
So
I
also
started
that
I'm,
a
good
starter,
so
the
create
repo
is
more
of,
and
this
is
why
I'm,
it's
not
exactly
what
you're
talking
about
so
the
create
repo
today
is
more
of
a
pattern
for
making
an
NP
eminent,
create
packages.
So
I
had
a
long
time
ago
started
my
own
generator.
Just
following
some
patterns.
A
I
had
I
had
found
worked
so
I
have
a
package
create
package
Jason,
which
supports
a
bunch
of
things
that
I
think
would
be
valuable
in
this
conversation,
but
it's
not
everything
and
then
what
I
did
was
I
extracted
the
common
logic
around
collecting
user
input.
So
this
is
CLI
Flags
turning
those
into
prompts
using
Enquirer
and
yards
as
sort
of
marrying
those
together
into
a
pattern
that
you
could
use
to
make
these
type
of
generator
packages
in
a
way
that
they
composed
together.
Well,
because
that
was
one
of
the
problems
in
previous
generators.
A
Is
it
wasn't
like
the
composer's
ability
was
a
nightmare.
If
you
look
at
yeoman,
it's
just
crazy
and
if
you've
ever
maintained
a
yeoman
generator,
it
is
a
nightmare
that
I
will
never
personally
embark
on
again.
I
had
early
days
wordpress
generators
that
was
fairly
popular.
It
was
I
just
never
want
to
touch
that
okay,
so
this
is
a
slightly
better
pattern,
I
think,
but
what
it
needs.
So
the
next
steps
on
taking
that
create
repo
and
turning
it
into
what
we're
talking
about
is
the
actual
thing.
A
A
The
innards
part
out
into
a
separate
package
and
then
making
the
create
pkg,
create
an
implementation
of
that
separate
library,
so
so
I'm
happy
to
pair
with
somebody
if
they
are
able
to
take
a
look
at
that,
I
can
show
them
the
work
I
did
with
create
package
Jason
and
then
I
have
a
create
gift
and
I
have
a
create
I,
have
a
few
other
packages
that
sort
of
implement
this
pattern.
That
might
be
helpful
to
get
somebody
set
up
in
starting
this
new
work
and
then
the
idea
would
be
we.
A
We
then
use
the
package
that
Darcy
is
trying
to
secure
the
name
to
as
the
final
publish
spot
so
I'm
happy
to
have.
Maybe
we
should
schedule
like
a
deep
dive
and
go
over
what
our
plans
are
for,
supporting
that
and
make
like
a
technical
set
of
technical
decisions,
because
I've
just
been
the
only
one
working
on
it,
so
I've
made
some
decisions
and
I
don't
know
if
those
guys
everybody
else
their
technical
direction
of
this
going
I'm
something.
A
Things
or
what
I
would
see
is
the
support
package
would
provide
a
set
of
tools
for
working
with
the
support
data.
One
of
those
tools
would
be
a
reusable
generator
component
that
we
write
into
the
create
package
via
this
composability
of
generator
bears
so
that
we
could
you,
if,
if
you
had
an
existing
package
and
all
you
wanted
was
to
generate
support
metadata,
you
could
use
the
support
package
directly
if
you
scaffolding,
a
new
package.
Okay
right,
that
would
be
what
the
create
package
is
for
granted.
D
D
A
Doesn't
sound
like
it?
Okay,
so
last
item
on
the
attacks,
EOS
Reach,
so
most
participatory
here
I
might
be
only
because
I
did
comment
in
there.
Hugh
and
John
brought
this
up
and
I.
Think
pinged
me
on
it.
So
basically
Axios
is
a
fairly
popular
library.
It
has
some
support
issues.
At
the
moment
you
look
at
github.com,
slash,
Axios,
slash
Axios
and
then
it's
issue
number
twenty
seven.
A
Forty
seven
one
of
the
collaborators
on
the
project
basically
said:
hey
I
I
tried
to
help
clean
things
up,
there's
a
bunch
of
outstanding
work
being
done
that
it's
not
getting
completed
because
the
maintainer
czar
not
doing
a
lot
so
John
brought
up
or
maybe
we
as
the
package
maidens
working
group,
could
take
a
look
at
what
is
missing
there
and
see
connect.
The
project
may
be
similar
to
how
we've
done
what
we've
started
to
do
with
Express
and
MQTT
as
pilot
on.
Maybe
it
would
be
worth
looking
at.
Xeo
says
the
next
pilot.
D
Maybe
it
can
also
be
a
way
to
help
explore
the
topic
of
governance
models,
which
is
kind
of
why
it
also
caught
my
eye
as
well
a
because
you
know
help
and
also
because
it
maybe
seemed
relevant
to
current
topics
within
the
team
agendas,
because
I
actually
was
thinking
as
I
was
going
through.
The
dock
like
out
there
that's
already
like
surveys
and
stuff
that
are
already
like
there,
so
it
seemed
like.
D
D
Well,
yeah,
that's
a
good
point.
I
haven't
actually
looked
at
the
history
of
the
project
since
and
because
it
looks
like
there's
a
commit
a
couple
days
ago.
So
I
mean
I,
don't
know
be
part
of
the
outreach
was
that
someone
had
also
posted
to
Reddit
about
it.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
maybe
garnered
some
extra
attention
and
maybe
they're
proactive
now,
but
just
haven't,
commented
back
so
they
just
say:
okay,
is
everything
still
cool?
Do
you
want
our
help
or
you
guys
been
working.
A
A
A
Which
none
of
these
people,
so
they
mentioned
that
Emily
Morehouse
and
used
to
have
they
used
to
have
meetings
with
this
person?
Let's
see
who's
the
it's
Chinese
fan,
I'm,
not
sure
what
their
relationship
is
to
the
project,
but
so
maybe
reaching
out
to
Emily,
maybe
actually
what
we
should
be
doing
here
so
I,
don't
think
we
I
say
we
collectively.
The
folks
on
the
cell
did
take
a
lot
of
action.
A
I
think
what
we
should
probably
do
is
reach
back
out
to
Chinese,
fan
and
say
hey
if
you're
interested
in
something
like
this-
maybe
get
a
group
of
the
Axios
maintainer
Xand
owners
together
to
have
a
discussion
on
what
is
needed
and
then
come
back
to
this
group
with
that,
as
opposed
to
us
getting
directly
involved.
Would.
D
It
be
I'm,
not
sure
how
I
mean.
Obviously
you
were
probably
involved
in
the
Express
outreach,
but
would
be.
Would
maybe
one
approach
be
to
comment
in
the
issue
in
our
in
our
repo
and
say:
hey,
we
have
a
survey.
We
have
like
a
little
intake
process.
Would
you
be
able
to
contact
the
maintainer
zand?
You
know
if
they
could
start
by
filling
this
out
and
expressing
their
their
point
of
view.
That
would
maybe
get
be
an
actionable
way
for
us
to
get
involved.
D
If
the
maintainers
fill
out
the
survey
or
you
know
face,
as
you
said,
they
make
a
first
step
and
that's
the
queue
for
us
to
you
know
figure
out.
If
it's
you
know
something
so
maybe
just
having
them
fill
out
the
survey
or
that
they
can
self-organize
and
then
again,
if
they
don't
do
anything,
then
you
know.
Obviously
you
know
you
can
lead
a
horse
to
water
so
to
speak,
but
that
could
be
a
thought
we
could
leverage
the
resources
we
already
have
in
the
project.
D
And
I'd
be
happy
to
do
that.
Our
Seenu,
who
knew
so
I,
don't
know
step
on
any
toes
or
speak
out
of
turn.
But
if
it
was
just
as
simple
as
hey,
we
have
some
material
in
this
document.
If
you
want
to
raise
an
issue
and
fill
out
the
form-
and
you
know
we'll
be
more
than
happy
to
you
know
and
after
that,
just
a
thought.
G
G
E
G
E
C
Mean
I
think
looking
at
the
that's
sort
of
the
the
contributors,
it
doesn't
look
like
you
know
the
there's
two
people
with
more
than
say
fifteen
or
sixteen
commits,
but
they
haven't
been
active
for
a
couple
years.
I
think
we
would
want
somebody
in
it
has
worked
well
to
have
like
Wes,
who
somebody
is
saying:
hey
I
want
to
help
build
the
community
contributing
to
here
like
so.
C
If
there
somebody
from
the
the
organization
there
that
says,
you
know
I
want
to
try
and
champion
that,
and
then
that
would
be
somebody
we
could
work
with
would
be
a
good
model
so
finding
out.
If
there's
anybody
in
the
project
who's
like
yeah,
you
know
I
can't
do
it
all
on
my
own,
but
I'd
like
to
work
with
that
this
team
did,
you
know,
try
it
out.
That
would
make
sense
so
identifying
who
that
champion
from
the
project
might
be
first.
It
would
be
the
next
step
they.
D
What
they're
saying
is
that
the
owner
of
the
repo
has
been
mi
for
a
while
there's
a
second
contributor
who
can
help
out
with
releases,
but
that's
about
it
so
and
I
don't
know
if
this
is
maybe
the
precursor
the
house.
So
these
packages
end
up
getting
like
transferred
to.
You
know
owners
that
you
know
maybe
kind
of
take
advantage
of
overwhelmed
packages.
F
D
Sounds
like
it's
there's,
there's
a
there's,
a
vacuum
in
the
ownership
space
and
the
contributors
are
trying
to
kind
of
so
I
think
maybe
we
might
be
in
the
same
positions
like
we'd,
also
be
calling
into
the
vacuum,
and
you
know
what
happens
if
that
doesn't
and
then
there
I
don't.
Maybe
this
is
just
overthinking
it,
but
you
know
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
one
of
those
cases
where,
like
someone's
like
you
know,
I
really
just
don't
want
this
package
anymore.
Who
wants
to
take
train?
D
A
So
my
opinion
here
is
that
recognizing
that
we
can't
play
Superman
and
come
in
and
save
the
day,
the
millions
of
packages
that
are
probably
in
you
know
this
one
is
rather
important
and
I.
Think
that's
why
it
got
the
attention.
It's
got
a
lot
of
people
depending
on
it
I
think.
Maybe
the
the
discussion
that
would
be
most
productive
for
us
would
be
when
these
issues
come
up.
What
is
our
default
response
right?
A
Help
me
do
that.
We
can't
really
do
much
other
than
point
them
to
our
sort
of
docs
on
this
stuff,
so
I
think
in
this
case,
maybe
the
best
next
step
would
be
go
back
to
this
particular
user
and
say
hey.
If
you
can
rally
the
troops
and
and
be
the
the
point
of
contact,
we
will
amplify
your
need
to
the
community.
A
C
Sense,
yeah
I
think
that
kind
of
approach
definitely
makes
sense
for
where
we
are
now
right
like
if
we
get
through
our
trial
ones,
and
we
figure
out
some
great
ways
that
our
magic,
then
maybe
things
will
change,
but
today,
I
think
we
really
do
need
a
champion
in
the
project
to
work
with,
as
opposed
to
hey
we're
gonna
go
solve.
You
know
a
problem
where
there
isn't
anybody
there
and.
G
I
think
it's
not
enough
to
have
just
a
person
who
says
you
know:
I'm
gonna,
be
that
person
and
we
do
need
the
original
maintainer
x'
to
basically
acknowledge
that
they
cannot
or
do
not
want
to
maintain
and
that
they
also
want
to
give
up
the
D
control
and
I
mean
you
know,
fairness
for
whoever
doesn't
want
to
maintain.
They
can
just
say
you
know
forked
and
that's
that's
what
needs
to
happen.
G
Or
at
least
need
to
get
that
owner
on
board,
if
or
or
I
mean
we
can
try
to
reach
out
in
some
other
ways.
But
I'm
I'm
not
sure
what
happen
on
rude
ways
other
than
creating
an
issue
in
the
repo
to
reach
out
to
settle,
but
I
mean
for
something
like
Axios.
It
has
32,000
dependents.
It
will
be
nice
and
intense
to
get
an
API
to
sort
those
and
by
download
camp
so
that
we
know
who
actively
uses
Axios
right
right
under.
G
Are
people
who
are
invested
in
in
the
fate
of
accidents
right
so
that
we,
these
are
the
people
that
would
probably
be
the
most
interested
to
take
over
any
work
that
needs
to
be
taken
over,
or
at
least
they
know
that
they
should.
You
know,
plan
for
contingencies,
but
something
like
access,
that's
32,000
dependents
and
10
million
downloads.
So
clearly
it
is
large.
G
So
yeah
I
think
we
in
and
and
be
and
p.m.
page
for
it
it
lists
to
collaborators,
and
none
of
them
are
listed
in
the
issue
as
being
active.
So
unless
the
the
ownership
of
that
package,
both
in
India
and
Europe,
can
be
reestablished
by
somebody
who
is
willing
and
able
to
take
over
that,
there's
only
so
much
we
can
do
it
and
I
know
that
person
they
have
commit
rights
because
they've
been
merging
peers.
G
D
G
D
G
G
I
think
there
were
some
issues
that
were
created
in
the
past
and
I
think
that
we
definitely
had
issues
about
raised
about
that.
A
fact
that
we
should
comment
letting
the
new
the
new
maintainer
is
willing
to
take
over
a
package
sort
of
the
process
of
handover,
so
I
think
we
need
to
prepare
some
documentation.
There
I
think.
C
C
It
seems
like
there's
a
large
you
know,
10
million,
but
how
do
we
figure
out
who
the
stakeholders
are
that
we
would
want
to
reach
out
to
to
try
and
help
get
get
support
for
the
module,
so
that
that
kind
of
seems
like
in
scope
for
this,
this
team
to
understand
how
you
do
that
and
try
and
figure
out
how
to
do
that,
because
it's
it'll,
be
you
know
for
any
project
like
this.
That
has
a
large
amount
of
use.
That's
in
you
know
in
the
state
where
they
don't
have
enough
help.
D
C
G
A
One
of
the
thing
that
comes
to
mind,
mostly,
is
that
we
said
we'd
have
a
three-stage
process
where
the
first
stage
was
these
pilot
packages.
The
second
stage
was
packed
packages.
This
to
me,
seems
to
fit
into
the
impact
package
stage
and
I
am
positive.
We
have
an
open
issue
on
what
the
impact
stage
should
look
like.
So
it
seems
to
me
like
the
next
step
is
to
go
into
that
issue,
which
I'm
trying
to
find
right
now
and
and
then
document.
A
C
And
I
think
we
could
consider
if
it
would
be
a
also
a
candidate
for
the
the.
What
do
you
call
the
first
stage
again
sorry,
the
pilot
pilot
pilot
one
but
again
I
think
that
comes
back
to
like
for
these
pilots.
We
need
a
project
which
will
engage
in
terms
of
having
a
champion
and
the
things
we've
talked
about.
A
Yeah,
so
pilot
packages
is
issue,
number
142
and
I.
Think
as
we
have
documented
here
is
we
were
just
doing
Express
and
MQTT,
but
on
the
list
here
was
a
few
other
ones
that
we
didn't
ever
when
we
have
requests
which
is
deprecated
in
favor
of
you
know,
packages
like
xeo,
so
maybe
somebody
needs
to
pick
up
the
pilot
packages
issue
and
read
campaign.
It
I.
C
Think
it
sort
of
comes
back
to
the
like.
You
know:
we've
made
progress
and
Express,
because
we've
had
a
champion
to
help
move
that
one
forward
and
that's
where
I
like
you
know.
If,
if,
if
the
person
who
opened
that
is
an
active
champion
that
says,
hey,
I'm
gonna
be
putting
work
in
here
to
try
and
to
to
grow
contributor
ship
and
figure
out
how
to
do
that
them
joining
this
team
and
then
working
with
the
team
to
do
that
could
make
sense
as
another
pilot
right.
G
C
Asking
maybe
ask
him
to
do
that
and
seeing
if
they
want
to
join
the
team
right
and
participate
in
the
meetings,
and
you
know
because
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
you
know.
We
could
been
part
of
our
meeting
talk
when
when
we
have
time
talking
about
what
they're
trying
to
do
and
how
we
can
support
is
if
they're
participating
here
right.
A
So
I
would
I
would
be
happy
to
yeah
I
think
giving
them
a
survey
would
be
great,
I
have
to
say,
having
filled
out.
The
survey
felt
a
little
redundant
some
of
the
questions,
so
maybe,
if
we're
gonna
do
that
outside
of
the
original
group
who
helped
build
the
original
survey,
so
I
was
fine,
answering
them
just
because
I
was
part
of
the
group,
but
going
in
folks
they
may
be
less
inclined
to
fill
out
redundant
questions.
A
C
A
G
D
Interaction
right
because
I
mean
I,
guess
how
well
I
mean
it's.
It's
tough
because
it's
great
to
see
someone
trying
to
help
out
a
community
and
there's
certainly
resources
but
they're.
Obviously
you
know
handicapped
in
their
ability
to
100%
execute
on
those
intense.
So
you
know
I
guess,
is
there
a?
Is
there
like
a
short
term
long
terms
like
hey,
so
we
can
get
your
owner
to
like
fill
out
the
survey
or
something
like
that.
Here's
some
resources,
those
can
help
and
then
we'll
bring
you
in
under
the
wing.
D
A
D
Yeah
I
mean
I,
guess
it's
if
we,
so
if
we
cure
it,
if
we
refactor
the
survey,
we
get
it
a
nice
spot.
Is
it
sufficient
for
just
that
collaborator
fill
it
out
or
do
we
want
them
to
go
hand
it
back
to
the
owner
and
then,
like
you,
said
that,
like
minimum
bar,
you
know
what
I
guess:
what
can
we
do
without
the
owner
and
what
could
we
do
when
the
there
are
links?
If
you
get
the
owner,
then
we'll
do
this
or
okay.
A
So
maybe
so,
let's,
let's
call
this
the
next
step.
Do
you
mind
I'm,
saying
you,
because
if
you're
alright,
with
following
up
on
this
button,
put
it
on
somebody
else
a
quick
response
in
that
issue,
what
do
they
responded
and
say?
Look
we're
trying
to
figure
out
what
we
can
do
to
help
you.
Can
you
reach
out
to
the
current
owners
and
get
them
involved
a
little
bit
so
that
we
can
discuss
what
next
steps
should
look
like?
A
And
if
you,
if
you
could
do
that,
then
we
can
have
another
discussion
in
it
in
a
little
bit
or
in
that
issue
around
what
we
can
provide
as
far
as
Docs
and
stuff,
but
but
again,
that's
sort
of
the
next
step,
and
then
we
can.
We
can
discuss
further
out
there
and
I'll
take
over
refactoring
the
survey
and
I
will
post
it
in
that
thread
as
well
and
say:
hey,
could
you
fill
out
this
survey.
G
C
I
think
I
think
we've
got
the
approval,
we'll
just
need
to
make
sure
like
I
said
before,
we've
got
the
right
licenses
and
that
kind
of
stuff
in
them,
so
I
will
go
ahead
and
try
and
I
guess
I
can
just
create
the
issues.
Just
as
we
put
stuff
in
the
first
things
we
should
do
is
make
sure
we
get
the
licenses
and
go
to
conduct
and
that
kind
of
stuff
it
we're.
C
B
C
On
that
topic,
not
pester
us,
but
I
might
anyway,
I
know
that
there's
been
some
there's
like
a
PR
to
try
and
there
was
a
PR
to
fix
the
issues
you
reported
in
the
express
status
board
and
it's
been
open
for
quite
a
while,
so
it'd
be
nice
to
get
that
landed,
know
if
it's
actually
resolved
the
issue
or
whatever
just
so,
we
can
close.
It
out
is
something
that
we're
looking
at
in
aren't
yeah.
A
A
A
I
can
circle
back
with
him.
Maybe
so
one
thing
I
can
do,
which
is
just
not
the
end.
Result,
though,
is
I
can
just
run
it
locally,
so
I
can
run
and
and
it'll
update
the
branch
and
push
it
locally.
Anybody
who
has
commit
rights
on
that
repo
can
do
a
manual
update.
So
if
I
just
started
running
it
once
a
week
locally,
it
would
be
up-to-date.
It
just
wouldn't
be
the
you
know
the
optimal
solution,
which
is
no
human
intervention.
It's
updated
right
again,
but.