►
From YouTube: 2020-03-18-Node.js Technical Steering Committee 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
B
A
Okay,
so
if
there
aren't
any
other
announcements,
we'll
move
on
to
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates,
I
don't
have
anything
from
the
board
to
bring
back
other
than
the
board
meeting
is
next
week.
So
if
there's
something
as
always,
if
there's
something
you
want
to
bring
up
or
have
discussed,
let
me
know
and
from
the
cpc
side
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
specific
specific,
especially
since
we
have
a
pretty
a
pretty
deep
agenda
this
time.
So,
let's
move
on
to
our
agenda
items.
A
C
Well,
so
robin's
gonna
share
our
our
slide.
Here
I
sent
a
deck
to
the
tsc
distro
list
that
has
this
fleshed
out
more,
but
in
the
interest
of
time,
I've
we've
consolidated
that
here
the
standards
working
group
that's
been
charted
by
the
cpc
to
sort
of
set
direction
and
projects
and
and
take
ownership
of
some
of
our
liaison
ships
with
other
standards.
C
We
got
together
and
did
a
big
brainstorming
session,
and
we
came
up
with
these
six
different
strategic
directions
that
we
thought
projects
might
like
us
to
head
in
and
what
we're
looking
to
do
is
get
feedback
from
all
of
our
projects
and
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
feedback
so
far,
node's
one
of
the
ones
that
we
really
want
to
make
sure
that
we
get
lots
of
feedback
from
on
these
six
directions.
This
is
what
we
came
up
with
and
I'm
going
to
run
through
them.
C
Super
quick,
as
of
course,
if
you
have
questions,
let
me
know,
but
what
I
want
to
get
a
sense
of
from
you
all
today
is
oh.
We
like
we
like
the
direction
in
number,
four,
not
so
much
number
two,
for
example,
because
there
are
very
specific
atomic
projects
within
each
of
these
directions
that
we
could
push
forward
on
we're
a
small
group.
We
can't
eat
the
whole
elephant,
so
we
want
to
try
and
focus
on
what's
most
impactful
for
the
project.
So
that's,
hopefully
the
context,
and
here
we
go
as
fast
as
I
can.
C
The
first
idea
that
we
came
up
with
was
a
program
that
helps
fill
the
cracks,
so
our
organization
becomes
a
place
where
proposals
or
polyfills
or
things
that
just
don't
seem
to
fit
or
fall
between
a
couple
of
different
working
standards,
bodies
like
what
wg
and
w3c
or
ekma
and
w3c
or
whatever,
that,
if
those,
if
there's
this
thing,
that's
being
missed,
that
we
can
kind
of
become
a
place
where
that
activity
starts
to
seed
and
grow
and-
and
we
can
shepherd
it
through
to
the
right
proper
place-
and
we
know
that
there's
some
examples,
and
particularly
in
older
polyfills
and
things
like
that-
that
we've
done
successfully
here
in
the
past.
C
Strategic
idea
number
two
creating
a
place
for
more
community
proposal
pre-consensus-
and
this
has
happened
a
few
times
already
with
our
group,
where
we've
had
some
folks
from
tc39,
for
example,
come
and
share
some
proposals
that
they're
thinking
about
and
getting
a
sense
from
the
community
here
that
oh,
this
is
a
good
idea
or
here's.
What
I'm
you
know.
Here's
my
reaction
to
that.
C
That
kind
of
thing
so
becoming
more
of
that
efficient,
efficient
place
for
collecting
community
vetting
and
ideas,
and
things
like
that
from
the
from
the
broader
dev
community,
which
is
certainly
something
that,
for
example,
the
w3c
would
really
like
to
be
able
to
do.
Programmatically
idea
number
three:
the
standard
stacks
idea.
This
one
speaks
to
my
love
for
research
at
heart.
C
What
we
would
love
to
be
able
to
do
is
find
the
common
dependencies,
the
common
sort
of
collection
of
things
that
lots
of
our
projects
are
relying
on
and
provide
support
for
them
or
provide
sort
of
you
know
more
automation,
standardization
around
what
some
of
those
things
might
be,
so
this
would
be
heavy
on
the
research
and
reporting
and
information
and
creation
and
sharing
out
to
projects
help
find
those
things
that
may
be
potential
weaknesses
in
our
system
as
well.
C
Number
four
project
support.
So
here
we
have
a
couple
of
projects
and
nodes.
One
of
these
right
and
amp
is
another
who
have
in
the
past,
had
specific
objectives
or
goals
related
to
standardization
activity
and
perhaps
wanted
more
of
a
venue
or
forum
to
go
move
those
things
forward.
In
the
proper
location-
and
so
we
would
instead
of
taking
a
broader
view
more
like
cross
project
view,
instead
be
a
place
where
projects
with
very
specific
goals
could
come,
get
support,
resources,
mentorship,
etc,
as
they
may
need
idea
number
five.
C
We
could
build
a
strategy
and
program
around
a
learning
and
onboarding
center.
As
many
of
you
who
may
be
familiar
with
standards,
development
know
this
is
sort
of
a
difficult
thing
to
break
into
it's
some,
it's
a
different
mindset,
it's
a
different
sort
of
way
of
working
from
open
source,
and
so
a
lot
of
times,
people
kind
of
get
confused
or
just
kind
of
stymied
by
this
standards,
culture
and
understanding
how
it
works.
And
why
and
that
kind
of
thing
so
and
there's
some
great
content
out
there.
C
Just
learn
about
this
and
then
the
last
strategic
idea
was
to
focus
on
projects
and
programs
that
help
decrease
the
number
of
jerks
in
in
standards,
development
organizations
which
sadly
have
that
that
reputation
and
we've
got
a
lot
of
different
things
that
that
we
want
to
do
in
our
own
organization,
from
a
diversity,
equity
and
inclusion
standpoint,
and
there
are
certainly
a
number
of
similar
activities
underway
in
in
other
orgs,
and
we
could
we
could
really
get
involved
and
push
there.
So
those
are
the
six
strategic
direction
ideas.
C
We
have
some
very
specific
atomic
projects
that
we've
identified,
that
we
could
go,
invest
in
for
each
of
these
and
what
I
would
love
to
know
from
y'all
is
you
know
whether
you
are
more
compelled
by
one
of
these
than
another?
I
like
all
of
them,
but
I
can't
we
can't
do
all
of
them
is
what
I'm
told
frequently
so.
C
I'll
admit
to
keeping
a
spreadsheet
of
what
people
from
the
projects
have
been
saying
so
that
I
can
kind
of
say,
okay.
Well,
it
looks
like
we're
skewing
towards
like
these
couple
of
strategies
as
being
preferred,
so
yeah
that'd
be
great
yeah
if
you
could
list.
Maybe
in
the
chat
like
oh
thinking
about
this,
I,
like
you,
know
two
three
and
five.
C
You
know
in
some
kind
of
ranking.
We
would
love
to
do
all
of
them.
That's
the
absolute
truth,
but
we
need
to
focus
and
pick
one
or
two
that
we
think
we
can
really
make
a
solid
program
for
before
we,
you
know,
go
all
the
way
out.
D
Yeah
speaking
to
this
really
quickly,
I
think
that
that
some
of
these
clearly
complement
each
other
and
some
of
these
feel
like
more
work
than
others.
So,
for
example,
number
five
number
four
and
number
one
all
feel
like
different
flavors
of
the
same
thing
so
well,
I
do
love
all
of
these
things.
D
You
know
like
learning
and
onboarding
and
project
support,
and
I
guess
maybe
filling
the
cracks
is
a
little
bit
different,
but
like
we're
talking
about
bringing
people
in
helping
them
support,
I
see
number
five
and
number
four
as
being
like
really
tightly
coupled
along
with
number
two
of
building
that
pre-consensus.
D
These
all
feel
kind
of,
like
one
part
of
the
same
program
and
then
like
where
we
take
the
thing
very
much
feels
like
number
one
like:
does
it
go
to
the
right
place
or
not,
and
then
number
six
feels
a
bit
like
just
kind
of
making
decisions
about
where
we
take
it
also.
So
I
this
is
not
me
slowly
saying,
do
absolutely
everything,
but
looking
at
this
list,
I
guess
working
backwards.
D
D
I
had
someone
in
a
chat
at
work
recently
say:
hey
someone
on
one
of
our
repos
was
asking
about
like
this
feature,
and
I
saw
it
from
tc39
being
discussed
in
a
forum,
and
I
spent
about
like
five
minutes
just
kind
of
walking
through
like
hey.
You
know
like
we
have
some
delegates
here.
If
we
wanted
to
pick
this
up.
This
is
what
it
would
take,
which
mostly
equated
to
like
seeing
through
a
feature
is
like
hundreds
of
hours
of
work
and
he
was
like.
D
So
I
really
love
that
that
this
list-
and
I
guess
the
only
feedback
I
have
is,
I
feel
like
we
could
do
a
lot
more
of
it
than
it
seems
like,
and
it
feels
like
we're
already
doing
a
lot
of
it
so
just
kind
of
for
making
it
a
little
bit
more
formal
in
letting
folks
know-
and
I
guess
the
last
anecdote
I'll
use
is
guy
bedford
from
the
node
project
was
recently
added,
as
an
open,
js
delegate
to
tc39
to
go
help
push
through
top
level
await
the
last
bits
of
changes
that
he
needed
to
do,
and
you
know
he's
been
involved
in
the
project
for
a
very
long
time.
D
This
standards
program
has
been
running
for
a
little
while
and
he
just
had
no
idea
that
he
could
even
be
a
delegate
and
like
now.
This
is,
you
know,
like
he's
an
independent
contractor.
This
is
on
his
resume.
I
don't
want
to
add
too
many
details,
because
it's
like
personal
details
about
a
person
but
like
everything,
I've
said
so
far,
is
all
like
public
and
in
our
channels,
but
he
didn't
even
realize
it
was
an
option.
D
C
So
there's
some
great
questions
in
the
chat.
I
just
want
to
be
mindful
that
we
are
but
one
of
many
many
things
on
y'all's
agenda
today.
I
would
love
to
continue
this
conversation,
but
I'm
going
to
seed
time
to
to
the
group's
agenda
here
and
anyway,
please
reach
out
to
me
if
you
have
additional
ideas
or
or
input
or
measuring
progress,
for
example,
is
another
great
question:
I'd
love
to
answer
that
too.
So,
with
the
standards
channel
on
slack
in
slack
workspace
as
well,
so
we
can
chat
there
too.
A
Just
before
we
move
on
were
there
any
questions
that
people
wanted
to
to
ask.
You
know
live
that
you
think,
will
work
better
live
than
through
email
or
something
like
that.
A
E
Can
I
just
add
one
more
as
part
of
our
foundation
update
umbrella?
I
just
wanted
to
flag
for
you
all
come
on
in
case
you
missed
it.
We've
changed
the
date
on
openjs
world
to
june
2nd.
There
was
a
wonderful
community
event
that
was
recently
announced,
js
nation
on
the
same
day,
so
we
had
the
flexibility
to
move
ours,
so
we
moved
ours
to
june
2nd,
and
so,
if
you
all
submitted
a
cfp,
we'll
be
announcing
the
schedule
april,
2nd
we've
been
working
on
all
those
wonderful
talks.
E
Our
march
24th
date
might
slip
a
bit
if
you
to
find
out,
but
just
want
to
let
you
know
and
also
we've
gone
public,
that
june
6th
through
8th.
We
will
be
in
austin
in
addition
to
a
virtual
event,
having
a
in-person
conference.
A
Okay,
any
other
things
you
want
to
cover:
no
okay.
So
let's
move
on
to
the
next
issue,
then,
so
I
think
we
have
quite
a
few
things
on
the
issue,
but
one
that
maybe
we
should
touch
base
on
to
start
with
is
there
was
a
comment
about
a
number
of
the
open
pr's
waiting
to
land
and
that
we
should
take
a
look
at
them
before
the
december
16
cutoff.
A
I'm
not
sure
if
we
need
too
much
discussion
beyond
you
know
making
sure
it's
a
strong,
fyi
and
asking
people
to
go.
Take
a
look.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
comments,
thoughts
on
what
was.
A
B
Unless
I
mean
releasers
get
to
make
the
decision,
so
you
know
we
can
ask,
we
can
ask
if
there's
december
in
there
that
we
really
want
to
land,
we
can,
we
can
request
it
and
I
suspect,
miles
miles
dropped
off.
It
looked
like
I
was
going
to
look
to
him
as
the
as
the
face
of
the
oh
beth
is
here.
Maybe
she
can
answer,
but
I
mean
I
think,
releases
tend
to
be
pretty
amenable
to
accommodating
exceptions
that
we
request.
F
Yeah
typically,
we
set
the
date
is
exactly
four
weeks
before
the
the
actual
release
date
which
we're
looking
at
20th
of
april.
So
I
think
that
might
give
us
an
extra
few
days.
If
we
stick
to
that.
Okay.
B
And
there's
one
in
particular
that
has
to
do
with
common
js
modules
that
antoine
linked
to
specifically,
you
know
as
this
is
you
know,
because
I
asked
him
if
I,
if
I
can't
look
at
all
of
these
issues,
that
you've
posted,
which
is
the
one
you
know.
B
A
A
Okay,
if
not,
then
let's
move
on
to
the
other
issues
that
were
tagged
for
the
agenda.
The
first
one
is
move,
derek
lewis
back
to
collaborators
number
three
7726,
I
think
rich.
You
added
that
to
the
agenda.
Did
you.
B
Yeah,
the
the
tsc
governance
says
the
new
collaborators
who
need
to
be
announced
at
the
tsc
meeting
or
either
what
you
know
so
announcement
derek's
coming
back.
He
voluntarily
moved
to
emeritus
because
you
know
had
a
lot
of
things
going
on.
B
I
don't
don't
know
a
lot
of
details,
but-
and
I
don't
want
to
share
someone's
personal
life
details,
but
I
believe
with
school
work,
basically,
and
but
I'm
not
sure
anyway,
he's
ready
to
come
back,
but
he
then
threw
it
back
in
draft
mode.
He
wants
to
delay
a
couple
weeks,
so
it's
going
to
be
a
little
while,
while
we're
at
it.
B
I
guess
it
should
also
announce
that
person
with
github
username
link
goron
is
how
I
usually
say
it,
but
l-I-n-k-g-o-r-o-n
ben
groom
nominated
benjamin
nominated
him
for
a
collaborator
cleveland.
Clever,
nomination,
we're
gonna
be
on
boarding
him
on
friday,
at
least
friday
in
my
time
zone,
and
so
that's
happening.
A
B
A
A
A
I
believe
that
may
have
already.
I
guess
it
hadn't
landed
by
the
time
this
was
open,
but
it
may
have
already
landed.
So
it's
already
landed
at
this
point.
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
more
to
discuss.
So
I'm
going
to
close
that
one
and
close
that
one
out
the
next
one
is
depps
addyarn
1.22.5
that
one
was
on
the
agenda.
I
added
that
to
the
agenda.
A
As
I
you
know,
I
felt
needed
it
needed
tsc
input
agreement
before
that
would
move
forward.
The
last
discussion
we
had
was
that
you
know
doing
a
survey
to
get
more
information
would
help
some
of
the
tsc
members
to
understand
the
sort
of
need
desire
for
that.
A
B
B
Okay,
let
me
try
again
because,
but
the
yarn
issue
that
we're
talking
about,
I
would
like
to-
I
might
take
that-
take
that,
as
as
a
as
a
test
for
the
rfc
process
that
I
that
that
I
may
end
up
proposing,
so
no
no
promises,
but
I
may
pick.
I
may
try
to
pick
that
up
before
too
long.
It's
the
type
of
thing
that
I
think
we
would
benefit
greatly
from
being
able
to
say.
Yes,
we
would
like
to
do
this
at
some
point
or
no.
B
We
would
not
like
to
do
this
for
the
foreseeable
future.
You
know
providing
some
kind
of
answer,
because
I
think
our
current
discussion
process
is
unlikely
to
get
us
there.
A
Yeah
we
started
the
discussion
with,
should
we
just
take
a
vote,
but
it
yeah,
it
seemed
like
more
information
was
needed
and
that's
where
we
got
stalled.
So
if
you've
got,
if
you
got
something
in
that
rfc
process
that
will
help
us
move
it
forward.
That
would
be
good.
A
A
It
has
a
few
approvals,
but
I
think
as
a
sember
major,
it
needs
some
additional
tsc
approvals.
B
Yeah,
so
this
was
this
was
added
like
a
month
ago,
I
think
yeah
24
weeks
ago.
This
was
added.
B
So
it
might
be
good
if
we
can
like
if
we
can
identify
interested
or
highly
informed
parties
on
the
tsc
who
might
commit
to
actually,
like
you
know,
spending
the
20
minutes.
It's
gonna
take
to
come
to
a
come
to
an
opinion
on
this.
A
A
Yeah
I'll
take
a
look
too
and
if
I
have
any
questions,
maybe
I'll
just
reach
out
to
you
directly
rich
and
discuss
okay.
A
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
the
next
one,
so
this
is
3611.,
so
this
is
tls,
improve
compliance
with
shutdown
standard
remove
hacks.
This
has
actually
also
been
on
our
agenda
for
quite
some
time.
A
B
B
That'd
be
welcome.
There
also
seems
I'm
wondering
if
there's
a
streams
component,
because
I
see
robert
nash's
blocking
on
it.
So.
B
A
Okay,
so
yeah
tobias,
if
you
take
a
look
and
put
some
comments,
I
mean
I
don't
think
this
is
a
newly
introduced
issue
or
anything
like
that
from
my
read.
But
okay,
that's
a
good
next
step,
rename
default
branch
from
master
to
main.
A
A
We've
updated
a
few
I've
updated
a
couple
the
last
week.
We
just
need
volunteers
to
go
through
to
help.
You
know,
update
those.
I
think
it's
only
members
of
the
tsu
can
actually
do
the
rename
of
the
branch,
so
we
probably
need
tsc
members
to
help
out
in
terms
of
doing
those.
Although
you
know
other
people
can
help
with
prs
to
change
things
that
are
that
are
needed
in
support
of
that.
B
A
It's
it's
certainly
not
super
active.
I
will
say
that
so
I'm
happy
to
open
it
up
and
see
if
we
can
get
any
volunteers,
let's
see
here.
Unfortunately,
I
can't
share
right
now,
because
I'm
frozen.
I
A
A
Yeah
no,
it's
done.
I
we've
changed
that
one.
So
all
the
all
the
node
and
node
add-on,
like
the
napr
node
api
ones,
are
all
done
and
gabriel
to
your
point.
It's
like
we've
decided
not
to
change
some
of
the
subdirectories,
but
things
like
the
github
will
take
care
of
redirects
in
terms
of
redirecting
to
links
that
have
made
in
them
or
mastering
them.
B
B
And
there's.
A
B
A
B
Yeah
I'm
trying
to
find
one
that,
like
I,
can
commit
to
doing,
and
there
was.
A
B
The
what's
like,
maybe
we
should
move
on
from
this.
Maybe
this
is
a
bad
idea
on
my
part.
A
I
guess
it's
my
my
real
ask
is,
like
you
know,
if
everybody
can
think
about
like
you
were
trying
to
do
like
look
at
the
list
and
say:
are
there
ones
that
I've
been
involved
in
that
I'm
going
to
be
them?
You
know
comfortable
changing
because
part
of
it
is
feeling
comfortable
that,
like
yeah
nothing's
going
to
break
I'm
part
of
that
group,
so
we
can
just
change
it
right.
A
So
if
everybody
can
kind
of
think
like
hey,
I've
been
involved
in,
you
know
uv.
So
I
know
it
doesn't
matter
if
I
change
that,
let's
do
it
right
and
so
on.
Okay.
So
let's
move
back
to
the
regular
agenda,
then
I
just
have
to
now
find
that.
H
So
sorry,
can
I
just
ask
real
quick:
is
there
anything
preventing
us
from
doing
the
renames?
Now
I
realize
there's
a
bit
of
work
in
the
documentation,
but
it
seems
like
the
truth
provided
by
github
should
take
care
of
most
of
it
right.
G
A
Branches,
if,
if
you
don't
have
anything
like
if
there's
no
automation
it
pretty
much
takes
care
of
it
in
in
a
in
something
like
node,
where
we
have
a
ton
of
pr's
on
the
fly
and
a
bunch
of
like
tools
like
you
know
that
help
to
say
like
get
node
land
and
everything
those
those
we
probably
need
to
be
a
little
bit
more
careful
for
others
where
it's
sort
of
a
low
use.
A
B
Hey,
oh
good.
B
Okay,
no,
I
was
just
gonna
say
that
we
have
12
minutes
and
six
more
items
to
go
through
so
but.
H
I'm
just
wondering
because
these
steps
that
miles
outlined
they
don't
really
leave
room
for
interaction
like
we
can't
do
it
in
a
pull
request.
Someone
has
to
do
these
steps
and
I'm
just
wondering
if
the
expectation
is
that
we
just
do
it
or
is
there
a
discussion
necessary
before
we
do
it.
B
H
H
B
Mean
some
reports
are
really
maintained
by
one
or
two
people,
sure
and,
and
others
have
you
know
like
you
know,
like
obviously
the
main
repo
or
the
website
repo
has.
You
know
100,
okay,.
A
Well,
what
I
did
last
week
was,
I
picked
three
or
four
and
just
opened
an
issue
saying
you
know
I
I
think,
there's
no
impact.
If
we
rename
this
you
know,
are
there
any
objections,
otherwise
I'll
I'll
plan
to
do
that
like
a
week
from
now,
okay-
and
that's
kind
of
like
you
know,
I
think
the
key
thing.
I
I
was
just
going
to
say
I
believe
and
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
that
we
cannot
use
the
github
feature
of
renaming
the
branch
for
for
those
repos
where
there
is
automation,
because
I
just
checked
and
if
you
try
to
get
fetch
origin
master
on
a
repo
that
has
its
branch
renamed
it
will,
it
will
say,
unable
to
fetch
remote
ref.
So
it
seems
to
me
like
we
need
to.
We
need
to
do
this
by
hand.
I
If
we
have
automation,
we
need
to
create
a
branch
named
main
which
points
exactly
to
master
and
maybe
write
some
automation
to
keep
the
two
in
sync
and
then
move
everything
over
to
using
main
to
refer
to
main
and
then
drop
master
by
hand,
because
otherwise,
if
we
like
the
direct
feature,
that
github
has
works
for
the
website.
But
but
it
doesn't
work
for
like
right.
But
I
think
for
some
of
the
other
repos
to
try
to
retrieve
a
branch,
then
it
will
say
the
branch
doesn't
exist.
A
H
I
I
think
the
point
is
that
the
while
github
the
web
interface
might
work
on
the
reference
where
we
got
from
the
remote
repository.
A
A
So,
like
I
think
this,
the
point
was
also
it's
a
long
list,
so
if
we
can
actually
start
with
all
the
simpler
ones
that
don't
have
automation,
we
can
probably
make
a
lot
of
progress
and
then
get
down
to
like
some
smaller
set,
that
we
can
look
at
and
say.
Okay,
how
do
we
more
carefully
do
this
smaller
set.
A
A
B
Yeah,
I
I
I
I
just
need
to
get
my
idea
across
the
finish
line,
so
I
can
present
it
and
then
people
can,
you
know,
say
great
or
not
great
or
whatever
yeah
so
working
on
it.
A
Honest
yep,
so,
okay,
I
don't
think
there's
too
much
more
on
that
one
than
the
next
one
apple
silicon
plan.
I
don't
think
there's
too
much
to
discuss
other
than
like
there's
progress,
but
it's
slow,
no
guarantees.
I
think
at
this
point
will
actually
you
know,
have
all
the
certainly
not
all
the
release,
components
necessarily
by
the
start
of
16.
But
you
know
it's
it's
being
moved
at
a
move
forward,
at
a
rate
any
other
and
and
more
you
know,
people
had
time
to
help.
That
would
be
great.
Any
other
discussion
comments
on
that.
One.
A
No
okay,
the
I'm
just
looking
through
ones.
We
can
get
through
fairly
quickly
enable
github
pages
and
sub
domain
for
dc.
A
B
A
A
A
Thumbs
up,
okay,
so
the
next
one
is
charter.
Indici
work
group
975.
This
one
was
put
on
the
agenda
by
I
think.
A
A
A
It
was
added
to
the
agenda
because
there
was
an
old
team
that
was
being
suggested
to
be
oh
removed,
actually
wasn't
removed
for
quite
a
while.
I
think
we've
gotten
to
the
point
where
we
can
remove
that
particular
team,
so
I
can
go
ahead
and
do
that.
However,
the
larger
issue
is
like
we
probably
should
have
an
audit
or
be
going
through
some
of
these
teams
and
making
sure
people
are
still
active.
B
I
wonder
if
we
should
reach
out
to
the
localization
folks
to
do
that,
but
maybe
not
I
don't
know,
that's
actually
a
bad
idea,
never
mind
for
various
reasons
that
I
can
get
into.
But
okay,
look
they.
I
don't
think
they
have
the
the
correct.
They
may
not
have
the
correct
github
privileges
to
be
able
to
audit
the
things
they
need
to
audit.
J
B
But
yeah
I
mean
I
mean,
maybe
someone
else
has
an
interest
in
helping
out
or
doing
it,
but
I
can
certainly
do
some
of
this.
Just
it's
not
going
to
happen
quickly.
H
There's
also
a
working
group
mentioned
in
our
tsc
repository
that
does
not
exist.
It's
node.js
ro,
which
I
believe
stands
for
romanian.
So
there
is
a
link.
There
is
an
entry,
but
there
is
no
repository
under
that
name.
Yeah.
I
believe,
oh
no
repository.
I
thought
I
archived
it
and
you
mean
there's
no
team
or
there's
no
repository,
it's
well.
The
url
doesn't
exist
and
it
gives
me
a
404.
I
believe
it
should
be
a.
B
So
there
is
a
node.jsro
team
and
they
do
not
have
a
repository,
though
so
yeah,
okay,
okay,
interesting.
I.
H
A
Issue-
sorry,
I
I
guess
for
for
this
week:
it's
like,
should
we
leave
this
on
the
agenda
for
further
discussion?
B
A
Right
so
I
can
go
ahead
and
close
this
one
out.
It's
should
we
open
an
issue
like
you
know,
I
can
open
an
issue
that
just
says
this
came
out
of
this
other
one.
B
E
A
A
Okay,
so
that's
good,
then,
looking
at
the
last
issue
potential
stagnation
of
open
issues
on
the
h1
bounty
program,
I
don't
think
there's
any
more
of
an
update.
I
guess
unless
smiles
you've
heard
from
the
the
people
we
talked
to
at
the
ossf
in
terms
of
when
they
might
be
starting.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
gonna
say
no
update
on
that
one.
So
now
we
wanted
to
go
to
a
private
session,
although
I
do
not
have
the
ui
to
stop
streaming.
A
About
it,
okay,
if
that
works,
perfect,
okay,
well,
thanks
for
everybody's
time
and
we'll
look
forward
to
seeing
you
in
github
and
next
week,
thanks.