►
Description
B
B
C
D
We're
ready
to
drop
this
issue
off
the
agenda.
The
write-up
is
ready
to
go.
It
has
been
brought
up
to
the
marketing
team
and
we'll
be
going
out
most
likely
next
Tuesday
on
the
official
nodejs
medium
there's,
the
Google
Doc
that's
been
shared
with
everyone.
Please
feel
free
to
review
it
one
more
time.
I've
done
a
couple
more
tweaks,
specifically
around,
like
I
made
a
slightly.
You
know
like
a
personal
intro
to
it
that
had
a
little
bit
more
context
for
people
that
was
a
request
of
the
marketing
team.
D
When
you
know
I
also
had
a
phone
call
with
the
person
who
opened
that
issue
and
reviewed
the
text
of
that
communication,
and
they
were
very
happy
with
the
outcome
of
it.
So
I
think
overall
this
this
should.
You
know,
allow
us
to
close
that
issue
and
not
have
this
on
the
TSC
s
ongoing
agenda
for
a
while.
D
C
One
was
an
alternative
to
proposing
opposing
deprecating
the
buffer
constructor.
It
was
sort
of
like
a
phased
approach.
They
were
going
to
deprecated
the
format
that
just
takes
a
number.
If
you,
if
you
send
and
and
the
question
for
the
TSC
on
this
one
is,
is
that
even
like
an
option?
That's
gonna
happen
like?
Are
we
gonna?
You
know,
you
know,
I
mean
obviously
not
deprecated.
Not
no.
Runtime
deprecation
is
a
possibility.
C
Runtime
deprecated,
the
buffer
constructor,
is
a
possibility,
but
is
this
phased
approach,
a
possibility,
and,
judging
from
the
only
the
only
people
who
weighed
in
last
time,
I
looked
were
Anna
and
Nikita
and
they
both
seem
to
express
the
opinion
that
it
really
wasn't
a
viable
option,
and
so,
unless
someone
else
here
today
feels
differently,
I'm
inclined
to
ask
that
we
just
make
that
the
answers.
The
answer
I
see
miles,
left
a
comment.
There
yeah.
D
I
was
just
requesting
that
if
we
wanted
to
examine
it
further
to
run
it
through
sidqin
but
I
for
one,
you
know
wanna
echo
in
a
sentiment,
you
know
I
understand
the
drive
to
want
to
like
clean
up
our
api's
and
stuff,
but
this
is
a
high
likelihood
of
ecosystem,
breakage
and
I.
Don't
really
see
the
benefit
to
doing
it
since
it's
not
necessarily
in
line
with
the
original
vulnerability.
C
All
right
so,
unless
someone
else
has
something
to
add,
I'm
inclined
to
remove
its
the
agenda
label
and
I'll
type
up
a
comment,
basically
summarizing
my
understanding
of
the
consensus
of
the
group,
at
least,
if
it's
not
the
sentiment
of
everybody,
it
certainly
nobody
seems
to
be
offering
a
counterpoint
and
then
we'll
go
from
there.
Does
anybody
have
any
strong
feels
about
this
issue?.
B
B
F
F
E
G
H
C
I
think
we're
having
a.
We
have
not
framed
this
issue,
and
so
we're
kind
of
just
talking
about
it,
summarizing
it,
which
is
cool
and
everything,
but
is
the
T
exam
I
know
like
we
just
put
on
the
agenda,
because
people
want
a
decision,
yes
or
no
on
this,
or
is
this
specific
question
we're
supposed
to
be
answering
or
what
exactly
is
the
purpose
of
this
conversation?
Does
anybody
know
that
it.
D
Was
clear,
we
were
not
gonna
reach
consensus
inside
of
the
issue
and
say
yeah.
The
issue
is
getting
heated.
Matteo
is
also
leaving
for
two
weeks
and
was
the
member
of
the
TSC
who
didn't
want
to
see
it
move
forward.
So
I
think
that
we
were
pushing
it
to
the
TSC
to
see
if
the
TST
would
be
able
to
reach
consensus
outside
of
the
issue
to
see
if
it
was
something
we
wanted
to
move
forward
or,
alternatively,
if
there
wasn't,
you
know
a
future
for
it.
So.
C
Who,
who
put
this
on
the
agenda?
Was
it
you
miles
yeah?
It
looks
like
it
was
you
so
I
mean
if
it
seems
like
the
issues
are
laid
out
pretty
thoroughly
in
that
discussion.
The
pros
and
cons
and
there's
not
a
whole
lot
of
you
know.
I
think
people
understand
each
other's
concerns
and
and
and
and
motivations,
so
I
kind
of
wonder
if,
if
the
thing
that
there
is
is
it's
just
you
know,
maybe
we
talked
about
a
little
more
here,
but
just
basically
have
a
vote.
D
I
D
So
the
only
pushback
that
I
would
put
on
that
is
that
I
would
imagine
nine
out
of
nine
times
out
of
ten
that
we,
if
we
broke
anything
with
this
we'd,
be
breaking
people
like
legitimately
trying
to
create
this
exact
same
behavior,
and
if
it's
only
on
the
prototype
that
can
be
overwritten
so
I've
still
like
James.
Did
you
find
examples
that
would
actually
break
if
this
was
added,
or
is
it
mostly
a
theoretical
thing
that
things
would
break
right
now,
I.
H
G
G
G
F
D
So
so
that
it
seems
so
I
guess
the
only
thing
that
I'll
I'll
ask
them
would
be.
If
we
were
going
to
do
this
and
do
it
summer,
majors,
that's
something
that
we
would
want
landing
on
10,
or
are
we
actually
better
off
landing
in
December
minor,
on
9,
seeing
if
there's
ecosystem
breakages
and
if
so,
reverting
it
before
it
ever
gets
to.
J
F
F
A
E
H
D
So
do
you
think
we
can
kick
back
to
that
issue
and
just
say
that
the
TSE
has
consensus
that
we
like
to
see
this
land
December
major
and
just
like
I
guess
the
one
question
then
would
be.
You
know
we
have
one
collaborator
who
is
still
-1
on
it?
You
know,
should
we
should
we
talk
to
them?
First
or
just
you
know,
that's
kind
of
the
result
of
this
conversation.
No.
F
No
I
think
I
think
you're
right.
We
should
push
back
to
the
issue
say
this
is
what
the
TFC
at
the
meeting
agreed
is
what
we'd
like
to
see
happen,
but
you
know
still
opportunity
to
object
to
it
landing
at
all.
Basically,
we're
choosing
a
conservative
path
here.
They
will
learned
if
we,
if
no
rejects.
A
F
F
H
C
If
we're
all,
if
there,
if
there
seems
to
be
agreement,
that
it
should
lands,
if
it
lands,
it
should
land
semper
major,
why
don't
we
send
it
back
to
github
change
the
label?
December
major
leave
a
comment
to
that
effect
and
that
we're
letting
the
discussion
happen.
You
know
for
another
week,
maybe
leave
the
TSC
review
label
on
there
and
that
there's
not
resolution
yes
or
no.
You
know
after
seven
days
you
know
it's.
Yes,
you
can
take
it
up
again
and
decide
whether
it
should
land
at
all.
H
C
C
B
D
I
do
think
that
we
can
improve
our
dependency
story,
there's
ways
to
do
it,
but
we
have
previous
art
here
with
es
lint
and
our
other
dependencies
where
we've
entered
everything,
and
it
seems
odd
to
me
to
have
this
as
kind
of
a
one-off
and
we've
hit
a
number
of
that
cases
in
making
a
one-off
with
it.
So.
B
D
Just
pinged
him
on
IRC
to
see,
if
he's
there,
maybe
he
is
that
would
have
been.
That
would
have
been
a
good
idea.
You're
right
on
that
I
mean
worst
case
scenario
in
this
week.
We
can't
push
it
another
week,
although
now
that
we
have
like
yeah,
we
have
awareness
on
it,
so
people
can
chime
in
the
biggest
thing
for
me
is
like
this
just
keeps
biting
people,
and
it's
not
a
small
thing.
This
is
like
in
our
contributor
workflow.
We
go.
B
D
D
D
B
D
I
mean
there's
no
way,
unfortunately,
to
check
this
into
master
and
ever
go
back
and
that's
kind
of
why
Rafic
was
pushing
back
on
this
was
just
like
you
know.
We
need
to
make
a
decision,
but
we've
also
had
this
for
about
a
month
and
I
have
not
seen
like
we've
seen
two
or
three
different.
You
know
possible
ways
of
fixing
this,
which
in
turn
just
uncover
other
edge
cases,
and
we,
you
know
I,
find
another
other
way,
but
I
think
that
we
shouldn't
block
this
in
the
meantime,
I
think.
D
C
Even
it's
even
worse
than
that,
which
is
that,
if
you
npm
install
one
of
the
things
that
gets
npm
installed
is
basically
a
configuration
file.
So
you
might
have
npm
install
the
configuration
file
from
3
months
ago,
but
someone
else
you
know
with
a
fresh
check
out
will
get
a
different
configuration
for
your
remark.
One
thing
because
you
know
you're
getting
this
reversion
so
stuff
like
that
and
that
that's
quite
and
like
it
just
causes
weird
subtle
differences
in
behavior
for
people
that
could
be
avoided
by
just
checking
the
stuff.
In
so.
A
Well,
I
mean
this.
This
sounds
like
it's
actually
really
huge,
like
we've,
we've
been
like
hesitant
on
stuff
in
the
past,
but
it
was
nowhere
near
like
what
8%
of
our
entire
tree.
That's
really
big.
So
if
I
might
I
would
make
a
suggestion,
which
is
we.
We
do
the
installs
in
a
separate,
git
repo,
and
then
we
either
tag
it
or
just
go
off
the
commits
directly
and
just
download,
basically
a
tarball
and
just
unwrap
a
tarball
in
in
the
directory.
We
need
it
so
that
we
don't
need
to
do
an
nm
p.m.
A
D
So
if
we
want
to
do
that
Jeremiah,
we
should
probably
do
that
for
the
ELN
dependencies
as
well,
and
if
that
is
that
we
want
to
take
it
most
likely.
What
we
should
do
is
remove
remark
from
our
test
suite
right
now
until
we
have
that
set
up
and
that's
the
other
option
but
I
have
you
know
no
one's
created
the
pull,
requests
or
move
that
forward
so
yeah
as
rich
just
mentioned,
Rafael
has
removed
his
rejection
so
Jeremiah.
Unless
you
want
to
object
now,
there's
no
objections
on
that
pull
request
would.
A
D
A
D
So
it
might
my
only
blue
is
this
has
been
broken
for
a
month
and
there's
been
multiple
calls
for
people
to
come
up
with
another
solution
and
it
hasn't
happened.
So
the
other
option
right
now
is
removing
the
markdown
linting,
which
is
also
an
option
and
moving
this
forward,
but
I'm
not
comfortable
doing
that.
Unless
someone
wants
to
like
say
that
they
will
need
the
effort
on
actually
doing
this,
because
otherwise
we're
just
blocking
it.
A
F
D
A
I
mean,
ultimately,
if
we
don't
do
this
now,
like
the
same
things,
gonna
bite
us
again
in
like
six
months
a
year
or
whatever,
when
we
try
to
add
something
else
right.
It
already
bit
us
with
the
insulin.
So
since
this
is
less
important
than
Uslan
and
I
think
this
would
be
a
good
point
placed
it
to
take
point
on
doing
something
like
that.
I.
B
E
D
D
I,
like
also
for
what
it's
worth
and
like
we
don't
need
to
spend
too
much
time
on
it,
like
I,
do
think
that
we
should
be
reviewing
our
dependency
story
as
a
whole
and
I
have
ideas
on
how
we
could
be
improving.
The
eighth
but
I
also
think
the
way
in
which
we
handle
tooling
and
know
dependencies
is
going
to
be
different
than
you
know,
stuff
like
open,
SSL
and
v8,
but
you
know
I
think
we
should
kick
off
a
strategic
initiative
around
just
start:
dependency
management,
yeah.
B
B
B
F
F
So
we
just
wanted
to
pass
by
at
ESC
to
see
if
there's
any
projection
so
that,
basically
it
would
mean
it
would
it
be
almost
impossible
to
build
any
of
those
versions
again
using
our
infrastructure
unless
we
put
this
stuff
back
in
place.
So
it's
letting
go
of
some
things.
I
think
there's
also
a
couple
of
servers
that
we
still
have
around
that
used
to
build
these
versions
that
we
don't
need
anymore.
So
this
is
I,
guess
asking
for
permission
from
the
TRC
to
scrap
everything.
F
F
H
H
F
F
Yeah
am
I,
saying,
be
nice
to
repos
and
there
there
is
an
additional
discussion
in
that
build
about
opening
up
the
conflicts
for
read-only
access.
What
we
could
do
is
actually
just
check
in
particular
versions
of
all
the
countries
into
the
build
repo.
So
we've
got
that
history,
it's
not
everything
but
there's
also
some
existing
stuff
on
the
server
that
is
already
in
the
build
repo
and
it
just
gets
updated,
ansible,
scripts
and
stuff.
So
some
of
it
is
already
in
the
repo,
but
we
could
we
could
do
more
and.
B
F
F
F
B
H
Basically,
what
this
is
is
a
group
of
of
companies
that
have
adopted
note
they're,
not
necessarily
contributing
they're,
not
paying
members
of
the
foundation
they're,
just
and
they're
significant
users
of
note
we're
gonna,
be
a
group
of
them
to
be
able
to
provide
feedback
through
the
community
committee.
There's
the
user
feedback
initiative,
that's
happening
over
on
that
side.
H
Member
on
the
committee
community
side,
this
fits
in
with
that
I've
been
working
with
Deshawn,
getting
us
organized.
They
had
the
first
meeting
last
week.
The
entire
intent
is
for
it
to
that
groups,
entire
agenda
to
be
driven
by
them,
not
not
by
CFC
members,
so
so
I
didn't
really
invite
any
other
team
members
to
that.
First
meeting
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
get
things
kicked
off
and
then
get
some
folks
they're
off
and
running.
Let
them
know
what
the
process
would
be
for
getting
chartered
and
then
then
go
from
there.
H
The
entire
idea
of
this
group,
though,
is
to
be
able
to
provide
feedback
in
term.
You
know
to
the
core
project
in
terms
of
you
know
how
decisions
are
impacting
them,
what
their
priorities
are,
what
their
pain
points
are,
whether
or
not
we're
actually
meeting
their
requirements.
That
kind
of
thing,
so
the
intention
is
for
there
to
be
a
kind
of
a
bi-directional
communication
channel
between
TSC
in
this
group
and
others
sort
of
formed
over
on
that
side
over
on
the
community
committee
side.
H
To
basically
say
you
know,
let
them
know,
this
is
what
we're
doing
is
sort
of
the
issues
we're
looking
at
this
is
what's
going
on,
I
gave
a
speed
back,
gives
us
another
channel
for
asking
questions
like
hey.
We
want
to
make
this
change
or
duplicate
this
API.
How
will
this
impact
you,
so
we
can
get
some
more
information
other
than
just
searching
and
camera
modules.
B
I'm
wondering
I've
been
working
with
then
in
the
community
committee
user
feedback
group
and
one
of
the
things
that
we're
doing
and
is
we're
gonna
pull
a
group
of
companies,
companies
together
to
get
feedback,
and
you
know
we
were
planning
to
organize
regular
interlocks
with
those
companies,
and
you
know
we're
reviewing
the
the
call
for
participation
and
stuff
like
that.
I'm
just
wondering
how
we
positioned
that
versus
this
separate
I
would.
H
B
E
D
Quick
question
for
you,
I
think
like
just
before
I
say
anything
I
want
to
say,
like
I
think
this
effort
is
really
great
and
it's
really
good
to
get
more
people
in
the
room
who
we
can
talk
with.
My
only
concern
that
I
have
is
setting
proper
expectations,
since
it's
like
a
feedback
committee
and
individuals
who
are
not
active
and
the
project
may
be
showing
up
and
asking
you
know
for
the
project
to
examine,
doing
certain
work
or
make
requests
for
certain
work
to
be
done.
H
The
expectation
I
know
it
was
with
a
group
is
that
they
understand
that
this
is
a
feedback
group
and
that
getting
involved
in
a
tent
and
getting
involved
is
more
of
a.
These
are
what
our
needs
are.
These
are
our
pain
points.
These
are
the
things
that
are
priority
to
us.
Let
us
know
if
you're
working
on
them
the
companies
that
are
involved
in
the
discussion
so
far
you
have
Microsoft
this.
Their
Intel
is
their
Netflix
taught
more
iBM
is
there.
H
D
H
There
get
a
help,
of
course
you
know
and
participating
with.
This
is
the
CS.
You
know
tone
and
the
court
seems
gonna
be
paying
attention
to
that
and
prioritizing
the
work.
There's
no
expectation
that
it
would
be
done,
I
mean
there's
no
I
mean
there's
a
you
know:
they're,
not
making
demands
they're,
just
letting
us
know
requirements.
J
D
My
concern
would
be
a
company
who,
like
you
know,
this
works,
is
a
good
place
for
people
to
come
in
and
maybe
can't
participate
on
github
for
legal
reasons
or
can't
get
involved,
which
is
you
know,
one
of
the
key
reasons
to
have
this
and
just
my
concern
to
be
people
coming
in
and
expressing
feedback,
and
then
it's
not
acting
on
it.
And
then
you
know
people
being
even.
D
H
One
thing
that,
and
then
came
out
of
the
meeting
here
today
was
basically
we
did
a
roundtable
and
I.
You
know,
let
me
say
we.
I
sat
there
and
listened
the
entire
time
wonder
around
Taylorville,
and
it
was
there
too
in
basically
did
a
top
level
of
what
their
priorities
and
why
they're
looking
to
be
involved?
Every
single
thing
that
was
mentioned
was
hoped.
It
was
already
on
our
plates
are
any
things
that
we're
looking
at
already
things
you
know,
I
set,
the
Microsoft
brought
up
is
already
stuff
they're,
actively
working
on
themselves
within
core.
H
Likewise
yeah
and
some
of
the
other
folks,
you
know
and
Intel
mentioned
performance
will
already
have
people
that
are
looking
at
the
performance
stuff
and
looking
to
make
active
contributions.
So
it's
not
just
raising
you
know,
hey,
you
know,
you
guys
go
do
this
it's
you
know.
These
are
problems
that
we're
all
facing,
and
you
know
just
you
know,
cataloging
what
those
priorities
are.
J
James
is
there
any
sense,
and
you
know
I
know
this
is
just
forming
and
I.
Don't
know
this,
but
I
think
that
feedback
from
you
know
these.
These
well-established
fantastic
companies
is
good
feedback
for,
like
the
whole
community,
to
hear
so
I'm
wondering
if
this
is
a
forum
where
they
kind
of
need
to
have
that
feedback
a
little
bit
private
or
if
future
meetings
may
have
an
intent
of
broadcasting
I.
H
Think
there's
going
to
be
some
combination
of
both
like
the
minutes
from
the
meeting.
The
other
day
are
posted
in
in
in
github
each
of
those
things
that
was
discussed
in
terms
of
priorities.
Is
there
public?
It's
nothing
that
the
end
be
just
as
much
about
publicly
before
there
may
be
situations
that
come
up
like
we
may
want.
You
know
we
might
be
having
a
sensitive
issue.
You
know,
like
the
kind
of
thing
that
happened
last
August,
that
you
know
that
we
might
want
to
engage
a
subset
of
the
community
and
say
hey.
H
F
It
was
actually
a
good
example
of
this
that
you
know
if,
for
those
that
are
engaged
in
the
security
repo,
what
courage
details,
but
the
questions
about
the
ordering
of
releases.
It
would
be
good
to
have
a
forum
of
users
to
be
able
to
ask
those
questions
of
right,
because
we
just
don't
meet
week,
where
we're
all
guessing.
H
H
D
H
That'd
be
part
of
the
chartering
process.
At
this
point
you
know
part
of
the
the
whole
mission
of
this
is
for
it
not.
You
know
for
for
the
primary
makeup
of
this
group,
not
to
be
TSD
members,
CSU
members,
you
know
participating
in
the
conversation
as
I
as
part
of
the
communication
flow.
Yes,
but
not
in
terms
of
the
agenda
setting
or
defining
what
the
priorities
are.
This
is
for
from
the
TSC
point
of
view,
there
should
be
a
feedback
channel,
not
a
hey.
H
D
Do
you
think
that
it
makes
more
sense
for
there
to
be
one
or
two
TSC
members
who
are
constantly
going
to
these
meetings
and
acting
as
an
intermediary,
or
do
you
think
there
would
be
benefit
in
of
cycling
who
those
are
so?
This
committee
can
get
to
meet
the
whole,
so
this
group
can
meet
the
whole
c'n
I.
H
I
think
that
remains
to
be
seen.
I'm,
you
know,
I
was
not
going
to
volunteer
anybody
else
to
do
it,
so
you
know
I'm
I'm
more
than
willing
to
to
be
a
liaison
to
this
group.
Importantly,
if
there
are
other
TSA
members
that
are
interested
and
and
participating
and
I
was
that
role,
then
we
can
cycle
through,
but
you
know
setting
this
up.
I
wasn't
going
to
assume
that
that
other
TSE
members
would
be
and
wouldn't
want
to
be
involved
in
because
I'm
not
going
to
volunteer
their
time.
Yeah.
F
H
B
Yeah
I,
just
you
know,
I,
you
know
I'm
putting
out
a
call
for
companies
to
participate
in
effort.
We
were
organizing
I.
Think
being
involved
in
this
might
help
me
be
able
to
understand
what
the
difference
is
and
how
to
position
is
to
anyway
right.
Dr.
Dan
sounds
like
you
know,
you're
saying
and
then
just
going
to
move
this
forward.
I'd
asked
him
about
it
before
he
didn't
have
too
many
of
the
details,
but
I'll
go
back
to
him
and
discuss
it
with
him.
It
sounds
like.
H
There
aren't
too
many
concrete
details,
because
this
group,
you
know
I,
mean
part
of
you-
know,
part
of
oval
and
kind
of
talking
and
working
on.
Organizing
script
was
for
it
to
define
its
own
goals
and
gender,
so
I
didn't
want
to
lead
the
conversation
with
too
much
pretty
pretty
established
ideas
of
how
its
organized
and
what
it
should
do
and
that
kind
of
thing
you
know.
My
whole
effort
here
has
just
been
to
get
people
to
on.
You
know
on
the
same
call
talking
to
one
another
and
then
go
from
there.
H
D
D
I
brought
that
one
up
too
sorry
for
making
the
agenda
so
huge
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
back
on
everyone's
radar.
This
is
likely
something
that
will
be
happening
in
q1
of
2018,
so
we
need
to
start
figuring
that
out.
The
v8
team
is
willing
to
work
with
us
on
it.
Just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
were
aware
of
this.
This
is
something
that
could
be
coming
in
6.5,
so.
D
So
it
would
be
that
the
scaffolding
for
Gipp
will
be
deprecated
out
of
the
repo,
because
they
maintain
it
right
now
or
is
the
GN
scaffolding
is
inside
of
the
larger
chromium
repo
and
not
checked
in
to
v8
itself.
So
the
simplest
thing
would
literally
be
us
beginning
to
check
that
scaffolding
into
our
creeks.
Alternatively,
I
know
that
there's
some
I
believe
that
there's
some
work
going
on
and
seeing
if
we
can
get
node
built,
would
GN
either
way
just
wanted
to.
A
I
Can
I
chime
in
here
we
are
working
on
building
note
with
GN.
We
will
not
turn
this
off
before
we
got
it
working,
otherwise
our
commit
bots,
wouldn't
let
it
through.
So
there
will
definitely
be
an
option
to
bid
note
with
GN,
but
maybe
it's
not
going
to
work
on
all
operating
system
study
notes.
It
was
I.