►
Description
A
You
know
it's
falling
apart
in
some
way,
we
r
us
intervening
and
providing
mentorship
and
getting
them
to
a
healthy
place
is
worth
it
for
us
and
then
to
like
I
think
this
is
something
that's
really
only
come
up
there
recently,
but
is
there
a
way
for
us
to
provide
that
mentorship
and
even
potentially,
you
know,
give
them
a
voice
inside
of
the
TSE
in
the
foundation
further
day,
without
taking
on
the
long-term
liability
of
hosting
that
project
forever
right
like?
Could
we
take
on
a
project
mentor
it
and
then
graduate
it
into
another
foundation?
A
A
C
A
The
mentorship
program
from
it
definitely
being
a
future
quote-unquote
top-level
project.
In
the
note
foundation
3,
it
gets
us
out
of
picking
winners
right
like
we're
we're
only
picking
which
which
projects
need
our
help
for
a
short
amount
of
time
and
then
once
they
are
healthy.
They
live
in
in
the
Ducks
foundation
and
that
foundation
probably
doesn't
hopefully
does
not
have
policies
where
it's
king-making
and
you
know
picking
winners
and
yeah.
So
that
was
all
that
I
had
to
say
about
that
quick
rained
out
there
Michael.
D
I
really,
like
your
last
point,
about
not
picking
winners,
I
think
there's
a
danger
with
with
accepting
a
lot
of
projects
as
top-level
projects
that
stay
there
forever
in
this.
In
the
in
that
you,
your
kites
kind
of
like
I,
know
that
you
know
no
tour
is
separate
from
like
the
like.
The
tsc
is
responsible
for
more
than
no
decor.
D
At
least
this
is
what
the
what
the,
what
we're
talking
about
here,
but
there's
a
risk
that,
like
users,
will
perceive
top-level
projects
as
like
a
kind
of
a
standard
library
that,
like
is
safer
to
use
than
like
things
that
are
not
inside
that,
and
that's
that's
going
to
end
up.
You
know
over
time.
If
there's
like
you
know,
if
there
ends
up
being
like
you
know,
30
projects
that
are
all
top
level
that
that
are
there
forever.
E
Me
I
agree
with,
like
I
agree
that
our
goal
is
not
to
pick
winners.
I'm,
not
sure,
though,
like
what
it
is
really
is
relevant
for
anything
Roth's
trying
to
do,
which
is
more
like
delineate
what
the
foundation
should
concern
itself
with
well
yeah.
So
let's
leave
it
at
that
I.
Also,
in
a
way
like
the
goal
of
the
foundation
is
to
make
projects
like
or
like
modules,
whatever
packages
more
healthy.
A
F
A
B
A
Point
it's
our
problem,
even
if
we
try
to
ignore
it
like
if
it
actually
ends
up
in
a
bad
place,
it
affect
enough
of
our
users
that
we
do
need
to
care
about
it.
That
does
not
mean
necessarily
that
we
need
to
host
it
indefinitely.
That
does
not
mean
necessarily
that
we
need
to
bless
it
as
something
like
a
standard
library
and
discourage
anybody
else.
Remember
like
doing
another
alternative
and
like
is
there
a
way
in
which
we
can
kind
of
have
our
cake
and
eat
it
too.
Here,
where
we
we.
G
And
I
think
to
both
of
the
UN
Faris's
point
is
that
you
know
this
is
concerned
a
perception
as
much
as
anything
else.
You
know
if
we
accept
one
of
these
projects
as
a
TLP,
it
can
be
viewed
as
like.
We
are,
you
know
not
only
is
like
this.
A
winner
boats
like
we're
signing
off
technically
on
it
was
people
have
that
perception
that
it
implies.
We
have,
you,
know,
technically,
abetted
these
projects
and
said
these
are
the
same.
Technical
quality
is
node.
Well,
that's
not
exactly
the
role
here.
Lisa,
that's
my
interpretation
of
it.
G
A
Oh
and
say
that
we
have
something
like
you
know
what
right
now
in
the
project
lifecycle
document,
we
have
some
some
metrics
for
health,
like
diversity
of
companies
that
are
on
the
TC,
like
being
G
located
in
different
time.
Zones
like
these
are
things
that
we
are
saying.
This
is
the
healthy
project
that
you
can
probably
rely
on
in
a
way
that
you
can't
rely
on
a
project.
It
just
has
a
single
made
tater,
but
other
projects
could
fall
under
that
criteria
that
are
not
inside
of
a
foundation.
A
So
if
we
want
to
encourage
other
projects
to
become
healthy,
that
we're
not
wanting
to
take
on
responsibility
for,
we
probably
want
to
like
open
up
these
definitions
in
these
restrictions
and
whatever
this
kind
of
certification,
quote-unquote
thing
looks
like
and
allow
anybody
to
get
to
that
place.
Right.
D
It's
also
worth
noting
that
something
that
is
critical
to
the
ecosystem
today
might
not
be
in
like
a
few
years
or
in
five
years
right
so
like
saving
it
today
would
still
be
a
worthwhile
thing,
making
it
healthy
again,
but
yeah.
You
don't
want
to
necessarily
like
do
that
forever.
When
something
else
is
has
come
along,
that's
better
and
people
are,
you
know,
are
switching
to
that.
You
want
to
like
let
it
die
over
to
overtime,
I
think
so.
H
What
I'll
say
I
want
to
keep
on
coming
back
to
this
idea
of
the
contested
space
dividing
is
because
that's
where
we
have
the
most
productive
discussion.
We
all
bring
our
different
Binion's
back
to
what,
but
we're
saying
about
is
a
small
core.
Is
it
not
like
I,
don't
think
we
should
actually
even
define
that,
because
that
depends
on
the
different
perspectives
that
come
to
the
project
and
I'm
gonna
I'm
going
to
fight
for
small
core,
but
I
know
others
aren't
and
that's
actually
a
healthy
discussion
to
have,
and
we
should
continue
having
that
discussion.
H
So
I
don't
want
to
write
all
those
things
down,
but
if
we
leave
it,
as
you
know,
this
generic
idea
that
we're
we're
responsible
for
make
for
fostering
a
healthy
ecosystem,
then
we
can.
We
can
have
the
discussion,
what
does
it
mean
to
be
healthy
and
we
can?
We
might
be
able
to
come
up
with
policies
or
we
might
be
able
to
look
at
different
action
plans
on
the
basis
of
what
that
means
to
be
healthy
and,
and
that
might
include,
for
example,
investing
in
some
evangelism
around
healthy
open-source
projects.
H
You
know
giving
out
there
and
creating
materials
going
talking
going
reaching
out
and
it
could
just
be
the
using
our
resources
to
promote
healthiness
of
projects
not
actually
using
the
foundation
to
adopt
them
or
anything
else.
So
it's
just
the
action
is
sort
undefined
and
exact.
The
exact
interpretation
of
what
it
all
means
is
also
undefined,
but
the
vague
idea
is
there
that
make
sense.
D
A
So
I
think
that
this
group
has
a
really
hard
time
visualizing
what
these
definitions
and
scopes
are
without
concrete
examples.
So
I'm
just
going
to
throw
a
few
things
out
there
to
kind
of
prime
this
discussion,
so
one
is
NaN
which
the
CTC
like
a
while
back.
We
unanimously
agreed
just
just
needs
to
come
into
the
core
project
and
and
be
there,
but
it
is
distributed
entirely
new
system.
It
does
not
ship
with
node.
It
is
a
third
party.
There
could
potentially
be
competitor
someday.
A
I
A
C
C
A
A
F
A
You
look
at
something
like,
oh
well,
you
know
native
is
part
of
the
story
and
what
ships
with
with
core
well,
of
course,
ships
with
the
native
API
Tomatoes
vatapi
there
are,
you
know
there
was.
There
was
more
than
one
other
abstractions,
and
then
I
know
that
you
did.
Fontaine
was
working
on
one
and
we
effectively
bless
one
a
different
one,
because
enough
people
were
depending
on
it,
note
also
ships,
but
but
but
then,
but
then
take
it
back
right.
A
C
C
G
C
H
B
H
Where
to
go
dj's
thing,
never
matured,
so
it
was
never
really
an
option,
but
that
doesn't
discount
the
possibility
that
maybe
somebody
fought
men
or
maybe
or
somebody
will
come
up
with
a
different
alternative,
and
here
we
are
holding
a
thing
that
we're
essentially
blessing.
So
it's
it
is
actually
the
same
sort
of
problem.
It's
just
that
this
current
situations
would
be
different.
D
It
might
be
worth
thinking
a
little
bit
about
why
a
project
would
want
to
to
join
the
foundation
like
what
didn't
in
gain
I'm,
actually
not
sure
what
I
wasn't
I
wasn't
part
of
that
discussion
but
like.
Why
was
nan
like
interested
in
folding
into
the
like
joining
the
foundation,
and
why
is
expressed,
and
why
would
other
projects
in
the
future
be
interested
in
in
doing
that
like
what
are
they
like?
What
are
they
hoping
the
game,
and
what
can
the
foundation
offer
them.
A
B
C
So
yeah
a
big,
a
big
thing
for
nan
was
to
at
least
to
some
degree
of
a
more
involvement
there,
so
that
we
could
so
like
one
when
a
major
release
of
note
comes
out
like
even
before
that.
Basically,
we
need
to
make
our
release
of
man,
and
it
needs
to
line
up
very
closely
so
that
people's
native
modules
can
like
keep
working.
Otherwise,
everything
falls
apart
for
all
that
that
amount
of
native
modules
that
depends
on
that.
A
A
Recognized
that
there
are
other
modules
out
there
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
don't
break
when
we
ship
as
well.
The
main
difference
between
them
and
man
is
that
the
actual
development
of
node
core
and
the
changes
that
are
required
and
mad
are
very
similar
and
connected
to
each
other,
because
we're
finding
this
native
I.
D
F
F
F
The
letters
foundation
is
set
up
as
this
umbrella
to
bring
in
these
multiple
projects.
Each
one
is
independent
of
one
another
and
just
because
you
know
like
right
now
on
the
node
is
associated
there,
but
there's
also
other
things
like
there's
mean
blockchain,
hyper,
ledger,
stuff,
there's
others
prod
these
all
these
different
projects
and
they're
all
autonomous
or
another.
They
all
have
their
own
governance
body.
F
They
there
is
none
of
this
hand-wringing
about.
You
know
how
these
things
relate
to
one
another
when
one
of
these
other
things
comes
in
and
I'm
wondering,
if
we're
being,
if
we're
overthinking
this
problem
a
bit
too
much
that
you
know
it
is
possible
to
have
these
additional
top-level
things
commented
a
foundation
level,
but
still
be
independent
of
core
right
and
have
their
own
independent
identity
without
having
to
say
okay.
Well,
you
know
our
report
is
core
blessing.
This
thing
or
not,
it's!
No!
It's
just
an
independent
thing.
With
its
own
governance.
F
C
A
Does
also
I
mean
a
lot
of
people
even
on
our
own,
or
don't
really
understand
how
well
it's
corn
is
doing
a
lot
of
trepidation
actually
on
the
board
is
like
as
much
as
we've
said.
You
know,
contributions
are
growing
at
this
rate
into
the
kinda
like
I,
don't
see
the
people
now
working
on
core
the
scale.
B
A
That
we
have
around
court
hasn't
persisted
outside
of
this
group
is
low
as
it
should
I
don't
come
back
real
quick
to
what
James
is
saying,
though,
about
how
we're
kind
of
overthinking
it
I
think
one
of
the
problems
of
running
into
it
and
I.
F
A
About
this
is
that
we're
trying
to
define
things
as
project
when
that
definition
is
really
insufficient.
If
you
look
at
what
Apache
has
done
right,
so
the
Apache,
like
you
know,
has
a
big.
You
know
flat
structure
of
all
these
horrible
projects.
They
mostly
scope
to
a
single
repository
and
a
single
district,
a
good
thing
for
every
single
one
of
those.
A
At
least
five
working
groups
that
we
could
pull
out
of
core
and
bring
up
to
the
top
level
without
a
lot
of
contention,
Utley
I
mean
the
website
documentation.
Evangelism
localization,
like
all
of
these
groups,
are
doing
stuff.
That
is
much
broader
than
quarter
like
like
scoping
them
under
core
has
really
just
been
a
convenience
store
bell
artifact,
but
if
we
skip
them
to
tappable
projects
like
they're
not
actually
equivalent
to
what
is
happening
in
the
CTC
United
corner.
F
F
Fairly
arbitrary
or
artificial
definition
or
hair
word
might
refuse
a
hierarchy
here
in
place
here,
where
one
may
not
necessarily
need
to
exist
all
right.
It's
okay
for
express,
for
instance,
to
exist
as
a
largely
independent
project
man.
We
we
want
to
ensure
that
the
the
process
and
the
governance
there
is
open.
F
You
know,
there's
a
significant
amount
of
value
and
making
sure
that
there's
that
everything
is
transparent
and
modeled
after
what
we're
what
we've
accomplished
with
within
core,
but
it
doesn't
have
to
be
viewed
that
that
expresses
somehow
under
the
node
project
right
it
that
it
is,
it
can
be
a
separate
thing
without
there
being
any
kind
of
interpretation
that
node
was
somehow
endorsing
it
all
right.
F
H
Just
wanted
so,
I
think
the
real
the
real
thing
we're
at
right
now
is:
how
do
we
message
it
outside
of
this
group,
because
we
seem
to
have
a
fairly
good
share
understanding
of
what
we're
doing
it's,
those
outside
the
dome,
so
the
board
is
one,
but
also
those
that
we
talk
to
you.
I
think
we're
all
talking
to
people
and
getting
a
lot
of
confused
messages
back.
So
we've
got
a
lot
of
work
to
do
in
terms
of
perception
and
that's
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
here.
H
A
A
E
So
but
the
hour
is
almost
over
and
it
I
don't
think
we
will
like
reach
sort
of
the
final
philosophical
answer
that
entertain
questions
today.
So
what
I
would
like
to
propose
is
actually
to
sort
of
except
rods,
3-point
thing
for
the
time
being
and
like
if
anyone
has
like
a
better
idea,
you
know
bring
it
forth
and
we
can
talk
about
it,
but
at
least
this
this
is
like
something
at
least
something
we
can
all
share.
A
What
one
thing
I
think
that
is
going
to
happen
with
that
PR
is
that
people
are
going
to
have
kind
of
knee-jerk
reactions
to
point
number
two,
because
we're
granted
it's
a
goal,
because
we
haven't
agreed
on
that
scope
yet,
and
so
people
might
interpret
that
as
being
even
broader
in
scope
than
what
we've
already
taken
on.
Rather
than
actually
being
an
attempt
to
try
and
quantify
and
find
that
to
go
better.
A
H
H
F
C
A
This
this
is
enough
feedback
to
come
up
with
some
more
concrete
proposals
that
we
can
discuss,
so
those
will
turn
into
PRS
what
I
start
to
work
them
out
all.
E
A
I
I
I
B
A
A
E
A
I
So
that's
definitely
the
first
thing
to
do
and
then
have
them
suggesting
vote
for
the
technical
committee
and,
at
the
same
time,
review
the
confucian
guidelines,
the
moderation
policy
and
all
that
measure.
The
environment
is
safe
and
as
a
clear
path
for
greatest
become
hoping
to
be
done.
Collaborators
and
hope
that.
A
E
Okay,
thank
you.
I
was
just
curious
that
what's
going
on
but
I
think
my
my
question
has
been
answered.
A
C
Alright,
so
we're
at
the
top
of
they
are
before
we
end
the
meeting
cook
up.
They
don't
express.
We
had
an
actual
meeting
on
tuesday
evening
and
that
went
fairly
well
and
we're
getting
the
committee
list
together
and
stuff.
So
stuff
is
beginning
to
roll
along
I.
Think
I,
don't
know
if
there's
anything
to
report
other
than
that
for
now.