►
From YouTube: 2021-01-14-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
Okay,
so
welcome
to
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
meeting
for
january
14
2021
we'll
follow
the
agenda
as
tagged
in
the
issue
within
the
repo
which
is
number
963
in
case.
Anybody
wants
to
look
that
up
before
we
get
started.
Does
anybody
have
any
announcements
they'd
like
to.
A
Thank
you
very
much.
I
guess
moving
on
to
the
next
section,
which
is
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates.
The
one
thing
I
think
is
worth
mentioning
is
that
the
cpc
director
election
is
open.
There's
two
positions,
the
one
that's
currently
open
is
the
representative
for
the
cpc
itself.
So
it's
it's
only
open
to
members
of
the
cpc
to
run
and
will
be
voted
on
by
the
voting
members.
A
But
if
you
have
feedback-
or
you
know-
want
to
talk
to
somebody
to
self
nominate
or
any
of
that
stuff-
that's
running
this
month-
and
you
know
so
talk
to
your
cpc
rep,
which
is
mary
from
the
tsc
and
joe
from
the
community
committee.
If
you
want
to,
you,
know,
provide
your
input
feedback
on
that
front.
A
A
No
okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
the
issues
that
were
tagged
for
the
agenda,
so
they
are.
The
first
two
are
nominating
mulad
as
a
collaborator
and
nobody
nominating
zheng
mu
zumang
is
a
collaborator.
Those
are
two
which
are
on
the
agenda
just
as
per
our
process,
I'm
doing
the
onboarding
for
malad
later
today
and
theresa.
I
think
you
volunteered
to
do
the
the
onboarding
for
for
zoo
right.
A
B
And
I'm
doing
an
onboarding
for
ian
ian
sue
tomorrow.
C
Yeah
I'm
happy
to
onboard
sue
mang,
but
unfortunately
I
don't
see
he
confirming
his
acceptance.
A
I
can
follow
up
with
him
as
well
to
just
make
sure
that
he's
interested
since
I
nominated
him.
Okay,
thanks,
okay,
so
the
next
issue
on
the
agenda
is
http
replace
destroy
soon
with
socket
end.
This
is
number
36205..
A
B
E
Am
so
let
me
give
you
the
I
done
so
the
key
part
here
will
be
inviting
the
next
step
probably
will
invite
to
the
this.
This
thing
gets
told
completely
in
fairness.
There
is
essentially
two
different
set
of
opinions
between
various
actors
about
how
we
should
implement
support
like
how
a
tcp
rst
packet
should
be
implemented
inside
http
and
inside
tls.
E
Now
this
is
goes
down
to
very,
very
tiny,
tiny
print
details
on
the
http
and
tcps
rfcs,
and,
to
be
honest,
I
am
like
I'm.
The
both
argument
seems
convincing.
So
I'm
not
to
be
honest,
I'm
not
in
any
position
to
to
call
a
shot
essentially
or
to
express
an
opinion
I
would
I
would.
E
I
would
argue
that,
if
you're
not
extreme,
if
you
have
not
studied
those
I've
seen
extreme
deep
detail,
you
will
be
able
to
gather
the
point.
So
essentially
we
might
ask
to
invite
them
or
to
present
to
ask
the
tsc
a
proper
question.
I
don't
know
how
to
unstuck
it.
I
think
that
what
we
have
there
is
probably
not
correct.
That's
my
point
of
view
to
get
it
done,
how
to
get
it
fixed.
I
don't
know.
F
G
Has
this
hand
up?
Would
those
tests
help
you
mentioned
that
there
are
not
enough
tests
for
that
now
for
the
spec
compliance
would
destiny
for
respect
compliance,
help
to
resolve
this
blue
request
or
not.
F
B
I
guess
but
functional
in
nature,
but
with
having
spec
compliant
tests,
help
resolve
the
the
difference
of
opinions
on
this
on
this
pr
approach,.
F
I
don't
know,
maybe
mateo
has
an
opinion
I
mean
my
take
on.
This
is
there's
like
a
few
different
concerns
that
are
being
raised
right.
There's
the
tls
concern
as
well,
which
has
slightly
different
implications.
So
it's
not
like
one
answer.
It's
all.
E
Yeah,
it's
it's
a
very
tricky.
It's
very
tricky
business.
It's
not
like
this
is
definitely
not
you
know
easy,
and
not
just
about
code.
Okay,
it's
definitely
not
about
code.
The
what's
being
talked
about,
okay,
it's
and
it
has
very
far-fetching
implication
on
all
of
our
users.
Essentially
so
it's
to
be
honest.
I
even
tried
to
ask
questions
around
this
and
I
did
not
even
get
some
cooperation
between
the
various
parties,
so
it
is
even
you
know,
there's
even
even
it's
it's
stuck
to
with
some
in
some
hard
ways
like
again.
E
E
A
I
guess
the
question
I
I
was
had
from
the
question
on
the
test
was
like:
if
we
had
a
good
spec
compliance
test
suite,
do
we
think
it
would?
Potentially,
you
know,
pass
on
one
of
these
options,
but
not
pass
on
the
other
option,
and
that
would
give
us
a
a
better
understanding
of
which
way
to
go,
or
I
guess
that's
one
question.
A
The
other
question
is
it's
part
of
the
it
sounds
a
little
bit
like
part
of
the
problem
is
like
without
that
we're
just
uncomfortable
doing
anything,
even
if
we
clearly
knew
the
answer,
because
it
might
have
broader
implications
than
just
one
test.
Is
that
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
mary's
trying
to
join
yeah?
I
thought
I
just
promoted
her
sorry.
F
F
I
think
the
I
think
the
most
realistic
one
is
what
matteo
already
proposed,
which
is
looking
at
alternatives
in
terms
of
like
what
everyone
else
is
doing.
I
mean
that's
a
good
starting
point,
but.
E
Exactly
so
at
this
point,
having
a
few
folks
debating
on
rfcs
on
a
github
request,
I'm
starting
to
minimize
it,
but
it's
it's
a
little
bit
up
some
nonsense.
There's
not
enough
substance
here
to
put
to
make
to
make
a
call
so.
B
B
A
F
Yeah,
I
think
the
only
way
to
do
this
is
to
like
make
a
matrix
of
what
everyone
does
and
the
different
scenarios
and
how
they
treat
them,
because
that's
the
only
way
to
really
evaluate
it,
like
all
of
these
comments,
are
not
very
easy
to
understand.
From
my
perspective,
like,
I
can't
tell
if
this
person
actually
went
and
tested
all
the
behavior
if
they
just
looked
at
some
code
and
they
concluded
that
this
is
what
it
does.
B
E
B
B
Maybe
I'll
just
mention
it
as
an
aside,
but
not
as
a
request
for
any
information
or
anything
okay,
and
then
I
mean
we'll
see
what
people
say,
we'll
just
go
from
there
and
I'll
just
take
it
off
the
agenda
for
now.
We,
you
know
we're
requesting
some
information.
If
people
can
provide
the
information,
then
we
can
take
the
issue
up
again.
Certainly
one
of
us
could
go
look
for
that
information,
but.
B
G
B
So
so
I'll
take
care
of
that
I'll,
just
post
a
comment
I'll
remove
from
tsc
agenda
and
unless,
unless
somebody
else
has
something
to
say
that
hasn't
been
said,
I
think
we
can
move
on.
I
don't
know
if
beth
or
colin
or
greece
or
gabriel
of
anything
they
want
to
say.
B
Mary
did
just
show
up
and
I
have
a
feeling
that
she
probably
was
able
to
hear
most
of
the
conversation.
I
don't
know
if
she
has
anything
she
wants
to
add
to
it
before
we
move
on.
H
Or
if
not
nothing's
read.
A
B
A
B
No,
it's
different.
It's
different
yeah,
okay,
so
this
is
what
this
is
one.
I
think
that
that
we
need
james
to
talk
about,
because
I
think
he's
he's.
Okay,
his
his
approval,
or
at
least
lack
of
objection
is
is,
is
what
we're
trying
to
accomplish,
or
or
else
just
close,
the
darn
thing
or
whatever,
but
so
yeah
yeah,
let's,
let's,
let's
punt
that
one
to
next
week,
if
that's,
okay
with
everyone.
I
That's
good
something
to
add
on
this
one
good
cone,
so
this
one
was
opened
by
jamison,
who
is
one
of
the
libya
v
maintainers
and
he
left
a
comment
because
I'm
currently
working
on
a
on
a
new
live
uv
release.
He
left
a
comment
saying
that
he's
been
holding
off
emerging
a
few
pull
requests.
I
This
is
on
the
libya
v
side
until
after
this
release,
since
it
will
break
some
flaky,
no
js
tests,
he
says
I've,
given
them
the
pr
to
fix
their
tests
nearly
two
months
ago,
and
then
he
links
to
the
request
that
we're
discussing
now.
So
I'm
inclined
to
put
more
pressure
on
that
by
adding
those
pr's
to
the
next
release
of
libya
v
after
this
one
and
then
linked
to
three
libya
vehicle
requests,
so
yeah
we
do
need
to
get
some
type
of
resolution
on
this.
B
Okay,
would
you
be
up
for
for
well,
would
you
be
up
for
follow-up?
Is
this
the
oh?
There
might
have
been?
Actually
I
see,
I'm
gonna
say
a
complete
sentence
this
time.
Okay,
so
you
link
to
it
here
it
is
and
yeah-
maybe
maybe
maybe
one
of
us
should
follow
up
with
james
about
this
I'll
I'll
I'll.
Take
that
on.
Unless
you
want
to
do
it
colin.
B
A
Okay
sounds
good
the
next
one
then
we'll
move
on
unless
anybody
else
have
anything
else
they
want
to
add
to
that
one
before
we
move.
A
A
A
There's
been
some
discussion
about
changes
having
been
landed
but
not
announced,
but
I
I
saw
somewhere
else
that
you
know,
and
I
I'm
sorry
I
don't
have
the
date
but,
like
I
thought
it
was
within
the
next
few
weeks
we
were
going
to
see
something
from
github
that
helps
when
you
switch
over
to
make
it
much
more
transparent
in
terms
of
pr's
and
stuff.
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
docker
node.js,
docker
node
publish
packages
to
github
registry.
This
is
number
1410.
A
E
Yeah,
it
was
apparently
conflicting,
so
essentially
there
was
some
conflict
in
the
fact
that
if
they
ask
for
consensus,
isn't
it
to
the
tsc
on
adding
another
official
channel
for
the
docker
images.
A
I
think
I
think
what
you
know
there.
There
was
a
recommendation
so
that
you
know
one
of
the
team
members
is
saying
in
addition
to
publishing
to
the
official
dr
habripo,
we
should
publish
to
the
the
github
repo
and
with
the
rationale
being
that
docker
is
starting
to
rate
limit.
A
So
in
terms
of
a
place
you
can,
you
know,
have
have
a
lot
of
downloads
of
docker
images.
You
know
adding
github
the
github
repo
makes
sense.
The
blocking
comment
is
you
know.
If
we're
going
to
make
an
another
sort
of
official
place
where
people
can
get
these
docker
images,
you
know
they
they'd.
Like
a
you,
know
the
the
tsc
com,
basically
saying
we
bought
consensus
from
node.jstc
and
comcom
before
saying
this
is
an
official
channel
and
also
we'll
need
a
pat
that
allows
publishing
packages.
A
You
know,
I
think,
from
our
perspective,
we
we,
you
know
it's
not
it's
it's
less
of
a
somebody's
objecting
and
we
need
to
rule
between
the
two
it's
more
of
like.
Do.
We
have
any
concerns
or
objections,
so
I
think
if
we
chimed
in
as
like
as
a
tsc,
we're
fine
with
that,
then
that's
the
that's.
The
question
that's
been
posed
to
us.
A
C
Just
to
clarify
this
is
just
not
a
proportion
to
store
the
container
images
and
the
github
itself,
as
is
instead
hosting
the
story.
Storing
the
images
in
the
github
hosted
container
registry
is
that
correct.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Will
do
okay,
so
I'll
take
the
action
to
add
that
comment
to
the
issue
if
everybody
can
go
over
and
approve
that
request,
and
let
me
just
take
a
few
notes
to
that
effect.
A
F
A
Okay,
so
next
on
the
agenda
is
audit.
Google
access
389.
This
has
sort
of
been
a
long
time
thing.
I
thought
I
decided
to
just
go
ahead.
We
set
up
a
process
where
we
were
going
to
get
some
help
to
do
the
audit
I
decided
to.
Finally
just
do
it
so
I've
gone
through.
I
sent
a
list
to
tierney
in
terms
of
who
I
would
drop
out
and
you
know
subject
to
feedback
from
him
I'll.
Just
do
that
and
close
it
out.
A
Okay,
so
the
next
one
is
654.
This
is
potential
stagnation
of
open
issues
on
each
one
bounty
program,
we'd
previously
decided
to
close,
stop
taking
you
know,
accepting
new
reports.
There
generally
is
consensus
to
wind
down
the
program,
and
the
current
state
is
we're
talking
to
some
of
the
potential.
A
A
If
not,
let's
take
just
a
few
minutes
to
look
at
the
strategic
initiatives,
because
we
that's
the
end
of
the
agenda,
we'll
make
sure
we
keep
say
20
minutes
for
the
private
section.
But
I
think
that
still
leaves
us
about
10
minutes
for
a
quick
look
at
the
strategic
initiatives.
A
So,
let's
see
here
matteo
had
to
head
off
so
we'll
look
at
that.
We
don't
have
to
don't
have
james
build
resources,
I
don't
have
any
update
on
and
mary.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
anything
to
update
on
the
future
of
the
build
chain.