►
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
A
C
B
B
D
Any
discussions
environment
variable
right,
yep,
yeah
I've,
been
seen.
You
know,
III
read
of
a
concern
about
that,
but
I'm,
happy
I,
think
I'm
the
only
one
and
I'm
happy
with
the
the
explanations
and
the
approach
on
that
so
I
mean
if
we
don't
get
any
objections
on
that.
Many
doesn't
that
one
needs
review
and
it's
quite
off,
but
I
am
not
seeing
anyone
strongly
objecting
to
that
approach.
Yeah.
A
A
B
Wait
anymore,
sorry
go
ahead.
I
mean
this.
This
does
bring
up
a
long-standing
issue
with
the
technical
steering
committee,
which
is
that
we
have
less
windows,
expertise
and
representation
than
we
should
and
I.
Don't
know
what
to
do
about
that.
But
I
just
wanted
to
blurt
that
out
states
the
elephant
in
the
room.
D
I'm
developing
on
Windows
full-time
now
so
I'm
at
least
you
having
a
disability
to
the
issues
we
have,
but
it
would
be
good
I
think
I
would
actually
have
to
say
it's.
It's
less
Windows
coverage
more
live
UV
like
we
don't
have
very
many
folks
on
TSC
that
are
really
knowledgeable
with
a
low
level,
would
be
the
abstractions
and
stuff
that,
if
they're
never
there.
A
One
that
was
tagged
was
processed
or
exception
on
unenrolled
rejections
equals
default.
I've
seen
that
there
is
progress
on
the
survey,
which
was
the
next
step
in
Matias,
commented
that
you
know
could
use
some
more
reviews
and
approvals
by
TS.
The
TSE
members
I
think
I'm,
not
sure,
if
there's
anything
more
to
discuss
on
that
one
until
the
survey
goes
out.
But
does
anybody
have
anything
else.
B
I
think
Benjamin
left
a
whole
bunch
of
comments
in
the
last
24
hours
or
so
so
you
know
conversations
still
happening.
I
mean
it's
it's
it's
an
unfortunate,
slow,
unfortunately,
slow
process,
but
necessarily
so
and
I.
Don't
think
it's
the
end
of
the
world
that
it's
slow
so.
A
A
D
A
E
E
We
on
a
machine
with
Visual
Studio
2019
installed
it
that
build
will
fail
on
a
machine
with
vs
Coast
vs
to
do
so
via
Visual,
Studio
2017,
possibly
there's
also
some
other
variable
in
the
mix
like
if
the
machine
is
under
power
or
who
understand.
What's
going
on.
All
of
these
was
tracked
to
a
suit.
All
of
these,
however,
a
significant
chunk
of
those
conditions
are
true
for
github
actions,
so
github
actions
on
windows
are
failing
right
now,
with
14.1
on
several
projects.
I
have
few
of
Mines
that
are
failing
and.
E
Most
notably,
these
was
powers
we
came
to
be
from
the
Jazz
community,
so
Babel
is
failing,
like
there
is
significant
amount
of
failures
around
and
boils
down
to
the
problem
that
we
have
locking
windows
expertise
because
nobody
has
a
clue
on
how
to
better
understand,
what's
happening
so
and
how
to
resolve
the
problem,
and
the
only
solution
right
now
seems
to
do
a
revert
of
that
commit
that
caused
the
problem.
Note
that
that
commit
it's
not
really.
It
does
not
look
like
it
should
affect
this
at
all.
E
So
so
the
issue
is
that
it's
not.
There
is
no
standard
output.
However,
looking
at
the
cut,
they
are
looking
at
the
code.
There's
nothing
in
that
commit
that
touch
standard
output.
However,
everything
that
has
been
these
failures
touches
that
module
somehow.
So
it's
related
to
code
coverage,
test
code,
coverages
tests
and
deities
of
that
kind.
So.
E
Not
really,
but
it's
a
significant
enough
problem
that
I
think
it's
good
that
we
talked
about
it
because
essentially
it's
we're
doing
a
revert,
because
we
have
no
clue
what
to
do
why
it's
and
that
feature
is
wanted.
So
I
done
like
you
know,
and
because
we
do
not
understand
the
bag,
we
cannot
put
a
fast
in
it.
C
D
F
E
F
E
A
D
F
B
B
E
B
E
E
B
A
D
A
M1,
okay,
okay,
so
the
next
issue
is
know
just
future
directions.
Any
interest
in
online
person
summit
I
just
left
this
on
the
agenda
as
a
last
reminder
that
I
did
submit
a
session
for
the
collaborator
summit.
So
if
people
have
thoughts
or
whatever
be
good
to
prepare
for
the
summit,
the
session
there,
otherwise
I'm
gonna
take
it
off
the
agenda
because
till
we
have
that
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
more
to
talk
about.
D
D
One
of
the
things
that
I'm
considering
you
know,
there's
one
we'll
go
to
our
yeah.
It
might
be
time.
First,
you
actually
do
consider
survey
kind
of
see
where
all
of
our
contributors
that
how
happy
they
are
with
our
process.
I
took
a
first
stab
at
a
set
of
questions
based
on
deep.
Does
my
team
kubernetes
project.
D
D
A
Sort
of
they'll
work,
you
know
things
workshops
so
basically
as
an
extension
to
the
examples
themselves.
Don't
think
we
have
any
word
our
governance,
whether
you
need
to
ask
like
a
team
needs
to
do
this.
Tyranny
had
made
a
comment
that
you
know.
Maybe
it
should
be
able
that
teams
can
just
can
do
this
on
that's
the
case.
A
B
B
B
D
H
H
Way
back:
yeah,
okay,
sorry,
sorry
about
that,
and
using
some
new
headphones
they're
betraying
me
I
think
the
concerns
that
I
have
here,
though,
may
make
sense
as
broader
project
and
potentially
even
foundation
policy
around
websites
in
general,
not
specific
to
github
pages.
So
maybe
that
is
also
an
asset
that
we
can
make
to
foundation
legal
I'm,
not
a
lawyer.
I
just
see
potential
risk
here,
so
it
might
be
like
now.
H
The
flip
side
is
I,
don't
know
if
we
want
to
open
that
Pandora's
box,
but,
like
my
concern,
is
purely
from
like
a
legal
hosting
perspective
and
making
sure
that,
even
if
it's
a
checklist,
people
who
are
making
websites
have
you
know
are
being
cognizant
of
it,
because
it's
very
easy
to
to
have
good
intentions
with
bad
results.
Here.
D
B
That's
that's
effectively
what
opening
an
admin
issue
is
and
I'm
gonna?
Actually
there
that
segues
nicely
into
what
Sam
posted
in
the
chat
which
I
want
to
read
for
the
benefit
of
viewers
and
for
the
record,
which
is
that
I
think
an
admin
issue
is
good
practice.
They
get
rubber-stamped
but
I.
Think
some
kind
of
or
wide
notification
is
a
good
idea,
and
that's
that's
basically
where
I'm
coming
for
the
record.
I.
A
B
And
it's
also
consistent
with
you
know
like
we
don't
have
to
draft
a
new
policy
for
this
because,
like
basically
the
github
policy
that
we
already
have
is
like,
if
you're
doing
anything
significant,
please
open
an
issue
and
let
it
sit
there
for
72
hours
and
then
go
ahead
and
do
it.
It's
kind
of
like
the
default
for
most
things,
there's
a
few
exceptions,
but
for
the
most
part,
if
you're
doing
something,
that's
what
you
do
I
think.
A
H
And
then
kind
of
adding
to
what
James
was
saying,
I
think
it
would
be
prudent
for
us
to
do
it,
ask
to
the
foundation
and
foundations
Council
to
just
get,
maybe
a
list
of
best
practices
for
any
web
properties.
So
tier
point,
James
I
think
it's
good
to
not
make
this
a
policy,
but
if
we
did
have
a
list
of
like
hey
here
are
the
things
that
could
get
you
in
trouble.
That
would
be
good
to
have
like
really
clear
and.
A
A
H
H
Our
perspective
that,
like
our
repos,
don't
because
we
kind
of
like
get
that
for
free
through
github
we're
not
hosting
like
content
there,
but
these
are
just
like
I
mean
I'm,
probably
being
slightly
paranoid
and
the
amount
of
time
that's
spent
in
enterprises
is
probably
showing
right
now,
but
I
just
would
be
rather
safe
than
sorry
we're
part
of
a
large
foundation,
and
there
is
risk
there.
I.
A
Okay,
so
the
next
issue
is
audit.
Google
account
access.
That's
number
three.
Eighty
nine
we
did
discuss
this
last
week.
Bryan
was
on
the
colicky
volunteered
to
basically
be
the
one
to
to
make
sure
it
happens,
which
is
good
and
he's
got
a
proposal
which
is
basically
to
you
know
bring
a
list
of
the
people,
was
access,
work
with
the
TSE
and
come
home
tears
to
filter.
You
know,
people
that
you
know
are
potentially
no
longer
active
and
then
anybody
who's
you
know
potentially
going
to
be
I.
A
Guess
any
names
not
tighten
the
first
run
to
be
distributed
to
the
broader
team,
come
come
for
consideration
and
then,
if
they're
not
tagged
in
that
round,
they'll
be
prune
from
the
account.
So
basically
it's
a
hey
I
know
these
people
are
still
active
and
if
either
the
you
know
the
TCR
come
come,
would
just
first
pass
or
the
other
to
see
or
come
come
members
in
the
second
pass,
don't
tag
somebody's
yeah,
we
know
they're
still
active
they'd,
be
pruned
and,
of
course,
could
be
easily
added
back
in.
If
we
make
a
mistake.
A
Yeah
so
I
don't
know
if
there's
I,
don't
anything
else
comments
questions
on
that.
A
G
G
It's
going
to
be
released
by
by
the
v8
team
next
week,
so
we
we
should
be
able
to
to
have
it
in
14
in
in
the
next
minor
that
happens
after
that
and
about
cannery.
Does
one
issue
that
we
have
now
with
Visual
Studio
2017.
It
doesn't
compile
and
I
discovered
that
this
morning,
so
I
haven't
pinked.
Anyone
yet,
but
I
will
think
the
windows
team,
I,
yeah
I
thought
about
maybe
proposing
to
actually
drop
support
for
Visual,
Studio
2017,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
can
do
that.
D
A
C
D
A
I
E
D
D
D
A
H
Yeah
sorry
delay
there,
so
a
couple
different
things
worth
mentioning
so
one
would
be:
we've
landed
the
pr2
unflagged
modules
in
twelve
dot.
Seventeen
thank
you
targets
for
putting
it
together
and
then
we've
got
just
we're
doing
some
QA.
So
if
anyone
has
time
to
boot
up
the
RC
and
play
around
with
it,
that
would
be
great.
H
It
should
be
for
the
most
part
and
as
close
as
we
can
mimicking
what
is
on
14
I.
Think
there's
like
a
couple
PRS
like
some
changes
to
errors
and
whatnot
that
have
not
landed
yet
in
a
14
release,
so
those
won't
get
into
12
yet,
but
they'll
get
picked
up
in
the
next
ember
patch.
The
biggest
change
that
is
currently
being
discussed,
which
could
use
help
with
is
a
top-level
await
so
upstream
in
v8
top-level
await
is,
for
the
most
part
stable.
H
All
of
the
current
blocking
things
that
were
blocking
landing
it
into
chrome,
proper,
have
been
landed
aside
from
the
blink
integration.
So
there
is
some
integration,
that's
necessary
for
host
to
handle
top
level
of
wait
and
remain
spec
compliant.
There
is
a
PR
that
is
open
from
Gus.
That
does
this
for
node,
it
is
putting
it
behind
a
flag,
experimental
level
of
weight,
which
is
an
alias
for
harmony,
top
level
of
weight.
There
was
a
need
to
make
some
small
changes
to
the
options
parser
to
enable
this.
H
So
basically
we
need
those
two
flags
to
mean
the
same
thing
and
the
way
in
which
v8
gets
the
options
flag
is
a
little
convoluted,
so
he's
made
some
changes
to
the
options
parser
to
kind
of
allow
this
to
work.
The
way
that
we
want
it
to
the
top
level
of
weight
side
of
the
pr
seems
to
be
good.
You
know
myself
and
other
members
of
the
team
have
signed
off
on
it,
but
it
does
need
review
of
the
options
parse
for
changes.
H
We
would
like
to
land
this,
preferably
before
next
week's
14x
relief,
so
that
we
can
get
this
out
and
get
people
testing
it.
You
know
it's
like
ready
to
go
and
I
think
people
would
be
really
excited
to
play
with
it.
The
plan
is
to
not
unflagging
in
node
until
it
would
land
unflagged
in
chrome.
We
don't
have
an
exact
timeline
on
that,
but
the
PRS
that
are
you
know
enabling
that
in
blink,
like
the
CL
I
mean
I
think
the
main
one
has
landed.
H
So
it's
you
know
mostly
about
stability
and
testing
stuff,
so
I
think
I
think
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
similarly
land
it
behind
a
flag,
a
node,
so
people
can
test
it
and
if
there
are
problems
you
know
open
those
issues
against
us,
so
we
can
get
things
fixed
upstream
before
it
goes
out
in
chrome.
Any
questions
or
thoughts
on
that.
D
Just
I'm
doing
Sam
had
requested
that
it
pull
some
of
the
bits
in
the
main,
quick
PR
to
make
it
easier
to
review,
doing
that
incrementally,
instead
of
doing
it
all
in
one
big
old,
go
which,
which
would
just
add
yeah
I've,
been
doing
like
one
or
two
a
week.
D
D
It
should
be
a
lot
easier
to
review
overall,
but
you
know
it's
truck
may
be
able
to
attest
to
it's
really
complicated,
so
getting
a
walk
through
something
you
know,
I'm
very
happy
to
do
a
walk
through
of
what
the
are
is,
how
its
structured
and
the
overall
considerations
for
the
what
I
call
it
well
to
give
some
context
on
actually
doing
a
review
and
being
able
to
get
into
what
it
will
be
for
quite
some
time
behind
a
flag,
a
compile-time
flag.
So
you
know
it.