►
From YouTube: 2022-06-15-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
So
welcome
to
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
meeting
for
june
15
2022
we'll
follow
the
agenda
for
the
issue
that
was
created
in
the
tse
repo,
which
was
issue
number
1242..
Before
we
get
started.
Does
anybody
have
any
announcements
they'd
like
to
share.
A
I
guess,
if
not,
we
can
jump
into
the
agenda
items
I'm
just
taking
that
for
this
week.
Okay,
the
first
one
is
revert.
The
change
of
the
network
interfaces
family
from
spring
to
integer.
This
is
number
43054.
A
I
think
there
was
some
earlier
changes
challenges
in
terms
of
like
tests
that
weren't
passing
on
on
some
platforms.
A
B
A
You
know
I
don't
necessarily,
I
don't
like
us
just
necessarily
disabling
tests,
but
I'd
have
to
say
in
this
case,
because
I
think
we
want
to
you
know
we
don't
want
to
revert
to
come
halfway
through
the
life
cycle
of
the
release
that
it
actually
is
the
right
thing
to
do,
and
we
should
you
know
land.
This
don't
know
if
that
aligns
with
what
other
people
are
thinking.
B
A
So
I
I
would
you
know
I
look
at
it
and
I
say:
okay,
you
know
it
now
actually
passes
the
test
with
the
two
platforms:
smart
austin
aix
disabled,
for
those
tests.
We'd
have
to
follow
up
later
on
afterwards,
but
does
have
quite
a
few
approvals.
A
I
don't
see
any
objections,
so
is
everybody
here
comfortable?
If,
like
after
the
meeting,
I
was
to
go,
go
ahead
and
land,
it.
A
Okay,
so
I'll
go
ahead
and
do
that
after
the
meeting
and
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
one.
The
next
one
is
43017.
Get
blame
ignore
revs.
I'm
opening
that
up.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
been
following
slash
has
thoughts.
They
want
to
add,
feel
free
to
jump
in.
A
A
A
Okay,
the
next
one,
I
think,
is
actually
probably
the
pull
request
there's
or
the
issue
related
43014..
A
A
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
build,
add
dev
container
configuration.
I
think
the
last
discussion
in
there
was
just
that
things
are
ready
to
go.
A
Tyranny
just
needs
to
work
with
somebody
to
get
the
last
few
things
over
the
line,
so
they
says
currently
the
only
things
blocking
us
from
landing
outside
the
failures
which
shouldn't
be
failing
is
working
with
someone
to
get
the
doc
ross
set
up,
and
then
it
says
the
open
just
step
foundation
staff
have
the
keys
to
that
orgs
that
we
need.
So
the
remaining
task
is
just
to
do
the
manual
work
to
set
things
up.
A
Okay,
I'll
just
maybe
leave
it
at
that.
For
now
it
would
be
interesting
to
have
those
containers.
So
if
I
have
some
time,
I
might
look
at
doing
that,
but
if
anybody
else
has
time
you
know
feel
free
to
jump
in
and
volunteer
there
as
well.
A
Moving
on
to
the
next
issue,
we
named
fault
branch
from
master
to
maine.
I
think
the
the
good
news
is.
We
did
that
today,
thanks
to
richard
and
stuart,
to
help
who
helped
worked
on
the
more
complex
ones
and
including
the
the
the
core
repo.
We
did
today,
finally
done
that
for
all
of
our
repos
across
the
organization
and
happy
to
say
we're
done
on
that
front.
A
Next
issue:
onboarding
ginobili
security
steward
number,
one,
two,
three
three,
actually
that
yeah
we
already
have
reached
consensus
in
the
issue
that
that's
okay
and
I'm
gonna
start
on
boarding
this
week.
So
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
to
actually
discuss
and
I
did
remove
on
the
agenda.
But
just
earlier
today,.
A
So
next
one
we
certify
moderation
team
number,
one,
two,
three
one
that
one
I
think
actually
was
closed
in
that
it
was
closed,
but
I
reopened
it
because
I
thought
we
should
at
least
capture
in
the
issue
who
was
recertified,
like
we've
done
in
past
issues.
D
So,
in
that
case,
you
can
copy
paste
the
the
list
of
from
the
moderation
team,
which
is
in
the
moderation
policy
dock.
I
think
in
the
admin
repo
or
one
of
those
documents-
okay,
so
yeah,
unless,
unless
unless
what
you
wanted
to
do
is
go
back
and
well
yeah,
let's
not,
let's
not
actually
even
talk
about
possibly
going
back
and
having
a
re-certification
for
people
as
individuals.
We'll
do
that
next
year,.
D
Right,
okay,
I
mean
could
be
in
the
moderation
policy
yeah
it's
at
the
bottom
of
the
moderation
policy
and
that's
in
the
admin
report.
Yeah
here
comes.
The
here
comes
all
the
moderation
there
you
go,
there's
a
link.
Okay,.
A
A
Okay
and
I'm
now
looking
at
the
wrong
one,
because
I
had
the
previous
one
from
discussion
in
the
tsc
meeting
today,.
A
A
A
C
Richard
you've
been
like
earlier
today,
so
the
announcement's
been
merged.
It's
there's
a
banner
on
node.js
or
pointing
to
the
announcement.
I
I
I
know
a
few
people
have
tweeted
about
it
and
I've
adjusted
the
release
schedule.
So
the
the
schedule
on
the
release-
repo
is
now
up
to
date
with
the
sort
of
altered
earlier
time
and
life
date.
C
So
it's
done.
We
just
need
to
sort
of
just
remind
people.
I
guess
periodically.
I
guess
that's
all
we
can
do
decisions
been
made
and
announced
and
yeah
all
that's
left
is
to
make
sure
people
are
aware
of
it.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
that
yeah,
especially
since
we
harp
on
like
we,
have
a
really
predictable
schedule,
so
it
would
be
good
to
make
sure
that
you
know
we
remind
people
well,
this
is
the
one
exception
we're
not
done.
We
didn't
manage
to
do
that.
So,
okay,.
B
A
C
No,
not
to
my
knowledge,
I
think,
there's
a
copy
of
the
release
table
on
the
website,
and
I
think
that
would
just
update
the
next
time
the
website
gets
rebuilt.
So
it
may
not
quite
be
in
sync
at
the
moment.
I'm
not
entirely
sure
how
the
website
gets
built,
but
there
is
a
table,
the
table's
not
in
the
get
repo,
so
I've
got
a
feeling
at
build
time.
It's
pulling
it
out
of
the
release,
repo
and
okay.
C
A
D
Yes-
and
I
tagged
it
for
visibility
and
to
sort
of
I,
this
is
like
changing
the
member
expectations
is
not
the
kind
of
thing
that
I
want
to
sort
of
like
slip
in
under
the
you
know,
only
the
three
people
who
noticed
it
noticed
it
kind
of
thing,
but
basically
there
are
three
issues
that
have
completely
in
moderation,
team
discussions
around
member
expectations
that
I
would
like
to
resolve
by
altering
the
member
expectations.
D
The
first
thing
is
that
there's
confusing
language,
or
at
least
confusing
to
if
I'm,
if
I
can
do
the
unwise
thing
and
speak
on
behalf
of
the
not
monolithic
moderation
team,
confusing
to
the
moderation
team,
in
that
it
says,
members
of
our
leadership
groups
must
conduct
themselves
and
blah
blah
blah
blah
blah.
D
So
there's
a
must
in
there
and
then
it
says
some
general
guidelines
include
so
there's
not
there's
like
a
must,
but
then
it's
like
what
what
it
is
that
you're
supposed
to
do
is
kind
of
left
very
vague
and
squishy,
maybe
that's
inevitable.
But
if
so,
we
should
probably
acknowledge
that
second
thing
is
that.
D
D
However,
moderation
team
does
not
believe
that
member
expectations,
especially
in
the
format
in
which
it
is
not
in
now
really
is
what
moderation
team
is
supposed
to
be
doing.
Like
moderation,
team
considers
itself
responsible
for
code
of
conduct
enforcement
and
doesn't
isn't
really
that
excited
about
having
other
things
bolted
onto
that.
D
So
there's
that
and
then
lastly,
it
says
to
report
people
to
the
moderation
team,
but
it's
not
really
clear
what
the
expected
sanctions
for
violations
of
these
member
expectations
would
be,
and
so,
like
an
obvious
one,
might
be
removal
from
your
leadership
position,
but
is
moderation
team
even
empowered
to
do
that?
That's
really
unclear.
So
you
know
I
don't
know
what
the
solution
is
like
one
solution
is
to
get
rid
of
the
member
expectations,
but
that
sends
a
really
bad
signal
and
is
really
terrible
in
terms
of
optics.
D
Obviously
you
get
so,
hopefully
you
get
where
I'm
going.
These
are
you
know,
but
but
but
these
are
issues
that
basically,
if
I
just
if
I
just
like
summarize
it
as
like
one
thing,
that's
like
the
too
long
didn't
read
it's
that
moderation
team
does
not
want
to
enforce
these
and
does
not
believe
that
it
is
their
responsibility
to
enforce
these,
to
the
extent
that
they
overlap
with
the
code
of
conduct,
their
moderation
team's
responsibility
to
to
enforce.
D
So
you
know
we're
not
we're
not
excited
about
them.
To
be
honest
and
I'll,
stop
talking,
because
I
see
that
richard
has
his
hand
up
and
probably
has
something
important
to
say.
C
C
You
know
if
we
get.
If
we're
going
to
keep
the
expectations,
then
there
has
to
be
some
avenue
that
someone.
You
know
some
ab,
some
clear
avenue,
that
a
sort
of
something
could
be
reported
in,
and
you
know
the
sort
of
process
mapped
out
as
to
how
that
would
how
how
you
would
report
such
an
event.
If,
if
you
know
if
an
event
should
occur,
hopefully
it
won't
ever
do
that,
but
it
does
feel
that
that
is
something
that
you
know.
I,
I
don't
think
it's
good
for
the
project.
D
Perhaps
they
can
report
it
to
the
tsc
or
any
individual
tsp
member
so
that
they
don't
have
to
report
tfc
member
violations
to
the
entire
tsc,
and
perhaps
tsc
can
be
responsible
for
self
for
for
enforcing
this
themselves,
and
of
course
it
would
be
expected
that
obviously
you
know
tsc
member
x
is
is
the
subject
of
the
report
that
they
would
not
be
involved
in
in
adjudicating.
D
I
will
say
that,
like
that,
like
these,
these
member
expectations
have
been
in
place
for
years,
and
we
have
we
have
to
the
best
of
mine.
All
I
mean,
like
I
think,
they've
been
in
place
for
I
haven't
looked,
but
I'm
gonna
guess
five
or
six
years,
certainly
four
years
and
I'm
gonna,
guess
that
my
recollection
is
that
in
all
those
years
we've
had
exactly
one
time
where
someone
has
has
has
said.
I
believe
that
someone
may
have
violated
these
well.
These
were
2000.
This
is
yeah
2017.
D
and
about
five
years
yeah,
and
so
one
so
assuming
that
pace
keeps
up
which
it
may
or
may
not.
Of
course,
you
know
we
should
expect
another
report
sometime
in
the
next
five
years.
So
so
it's
not
it's
not
like
a
a
large.
You
know
large
volume
of
these
things.
Obviously
I
would
expect
us
to
almost
never
get
reports.
C
C
D
C
Know
that
is
the
currently
documented
thing.
So
if
the
modernization,
if
the
moderation
team,
as
you
I
I
think
what
you're
saying
is
the
moderation
team
doesn't
feel
comfortable
with
that
responsibility,
or
does
it
feel
that
it
has
the
power
to
to
do
anything
with
reports.
C
C
That,
and
something
has
been
reported
I
mean,
are
you
I'm
hoping
it
never
does
get
reported,
but
I
don't
want
to
be
in
a
situation
where
something
is
reported
and
it's
unclear
what
should
be
done
with
it,
because
we,
you
know
it
puts
it,
would
make
a
stressful
situation
much
more
stressful
if
there
are
at
least
some
sort
of
guidelines
as
to
what
is
expected
to
happen
and
and
who,
who
which
you
know,
who
who
ultimately
is
has
what
responsibilities
in
that
situation
like
you
know
who
gets
reported
to
and
then
what?
What?
D
Whoever
gets
the
reports
should
also
have
clear
processes
in
place
to
handle
them.
Unless
somebody
has
like
burning
thoughts
on
this,
I
actually
don't
know
that
that
this
is
the
place
to
discuss
it,
because
we'll
just
have
to
repeat
it
for
everybody
else.
At
some
point,
we
should
probably
have
the
discussion
in
the
issue
tracker
I
just
wanted.
I
just
I
just
wanted
to
get
it
in
people's
faces
by
by
putting
it
on
the
agenda,
but
don't
let
me
stop
a
burning
comment.
C
My
idea,
the
other
question
is:
is
it
something
that
ultimately,
whatever
process
we've
got
ultimately
there's
some
sort
of
way
up
to
the
opengs
foundation?
A
Like
I
think
in
that
sense,
it's
you
know
if
it's
not
a
moderation
offense,
I
don't
know
that
it.
You
know
escalates
up
to
the
openjs
foundation
or
or
even
to
be
honest
in
the
case
of
a
moderation
we
have
not
delegated
from
the
project
to
the
opengs
foundation,
it's
delegated
to
the
moderation
team.
D
For
help,
I
don't
know
that
it
doesn't
escalate
up
to
them,
though,
like
if
we,
if
we
aren't,
I
mean
if
we
decide
to
have
if
we
decide
that
we
want
to
get
rid
of
our
code
of
conduct
and
not
have
one.
I
think
that
I
think
the
foundation
escalating
that
to
the
foundation
the
foundation
saying.
No
all
projects
in
the
foundation
have
to
have
a
code
of
conduct.
I
mean,
I
think,
that
that's
that's.
That's
that's
legitimate.
A
So,
let's.
A
Wanna,
that's
totally
separate
my
the
comments
I
wanted
to
add
were
there
was
lots
of
context
in
this
when
it
was
created,
especially
the
specific
wording,
and
so
it's
probably
it
probably
is
good
to
update
it.
The
other
key
thing
I
want
to
say
is:
I
don't
think
you
have
to
have.
The
here
are
some
expectations?
Here's
a
disciplinary
process.
If
you
don't
follow
them,
I
don't
think
you
have
to
have
those
two
bits.
I
know
the
moderation
one
is
is
very
much
a
here's
things
that
you
do
you
step
over
this
line.
A
A
If
somebody
for
some
reason
you
know
just
doesn't
come
across
as
a
leader,
but
doesn't
you
know
it's?
You
know
these
aren't
necessarily
things
which
are
like.
Oh,
you
didn't
do
that.
I'm
going
to
report
you
for
that
there
right
are.
There
are
a
set
of
things
that,
as
a
whole,
you
know
we
expect
people
to
live
up
to,
but
I
don't
think
it
should
be
like
yeah
just
check
boxy
did
you
do
this?
A
D
E
Yeah,
I
just
you
know
for
talking
about
the
membership
expectations.
I
think
that
I
like
the
idea
of
framing
it
as
the
letter
of
the
law
versus
the
spirit
of
the
law
right
like
and
what
I
mean
by
that
is
like
hey
the
words
that
we
put
down.
There
are
totally
malleable,
like
I'm
personally,
not
committed
to
any
of
the
specific
language.
E
D
I
I
hate
to
keep
I
hate
to
keep
acting
like
I'm
trying
to
stop
this
conversation
from
happening
here
now,
but
I
would
like
to
I
would
like
to
propose
that
we
table
this,
because
I
want
to
leave
a
lot
of
time
for
the
private
segment
yep
I've
agreed
anybody.
Would
you
want
to
check
in?
I
do
want
to
check
in
with
all
the
people
that
we
have
never
said
anything
in
this
meeting
so
far
in
the
first
half
hour
to
see
if
they
have
anything
to
say
on
this
or
any
other
topic.