►
Description
B
B
B
B
B
B
The
idea
there
is
you
know,
there's
been
some
discussions
about
focusing
a
little
bit
more
on
some
of
the
strategic
initiatives
that
we
actually
already
have
underway.
This
just
adds
a
list
of
them
to
the
TST
repo.
One
area
of
discussion,
I
think
was
around
whether
it
should
include
working
groups
or
just
initiatives.
B
Miles
had
mentioned
had
suggested.
Somebody
had
suggested
ones
that
kind
of
include
the
scope
of
working
groups
by
that,
as
a
man
and
model
suggested
that
actually
should
be
more
actual
initiatives,
not
sort
of
general
things,
which
is,
you
know
like
release
and
build
and
stuff
ongoing
work,
good
things,
I,
definitely
I
agree
with
that,
so
I
removed
them
again,
I
don't
know
if
anybody
else
has
thoughts
or
comments
in
terms
of
the
scope
of
what
we
should
or
shouldn't
include
in
that
list.
C
C
So,
like
moderation,
is
still
like
a
pretty
broad
topic,
as
opposed
to
like
specific
things,
with
moderation,
so
I
know,
for
example,
we
have
a
need
to
figure
out
stuff
around
reporting
regarding
leadership,
so
that
was
kind
of
more
of
the
idea.
I
had
of
like
a
tighter
scope
on
it
or
as
Richard
saying
getting
the
moderation
team
up
and
running
the
the
other
thing
that
is
also
is
like.
A
lot
of
these
initiatives
were
rounded
up
based
on.
C
You
know,
just
kind
of
like,
what's
going
on
right
now,
as
opposed
to
people
having
explicitly
volunteered
and
so
I'm,
not
sure,
if
that
makes
sense
to
add
things
to
this
list
that
haven't,
had
people
explicitly
volunteer
that
they
want
a
champion
and
have
what
they're
working
on
be
considered
a
strategic
initiative,
I'm
flexible
on
that,
but
I'd
like
to
hear
kind
of
what
other
people
think
about
that.
If
you
know
we
should
try
to
collect
all
of
what
appears
to
currently
the
initiatives
or
if
we
should
wait
for
individuals
to
submit
to
submit
them.
A
I'd
like
to
see
a
definition
of
what
the
strategic
initiative
is,
what
what
is
it
about
these
things?
That
means
that
they
are
things
that
the
TSE
is
directly
concerned
in
that,
because
I
could
think
of
a
bunch
of
things,
for
example,
that
we're
doing
in
build
like
testing
shared
libraries
and
that
note
can
be
built
as
a
shared
library.
Those
kinds
of
things
that
are
you
know
they're
these,
these
chunky
tasks
that
need
to
be
done,
but
and
then
maybe
the
TSE
wants
to
care
about
that.
B
B
So
let
me
actually
I,
could
you
know
if
we
decide
that
that's
important,
which
I
think
it?
You
know
those
are
two
two
specific
instances,
so
we
can
scope
it
down
to
you
know
specific
instance
like
that
or
you
know
I
guess
you
know.
My
first
comment
is:
should
we
actually
scope
it
to
something
more
general
or
try
and
do
it
is
this?
You
know
specific
ones
like
that.
C
B
I
guess
it's
like
weak,
we,
you
know
it's
that
you
want
to
take
a
smaller
set
but
say
from
this
list.
Let's
you
know
it's
a
very
concrete
list
which
of
these
would
we
drop
out
if
we
want
to
make
the
numbers
smaller
and
then
we
can
see,
you
know,
does
that
actually
make
sense
to
drop
the
left
and
it's
if
yes
and
great?
If
not,
then
we
can
sort
of
come
back
to
well.
How
do
we
handle
the
number
that
you
know
if
there's
a
number
of
equal
peers?
How
do
we
handle?
C
Think
I
think
one
other
thing:
I
was
thinking
about
and
I'm,
not
sure
if
there
should
be
a
category
or
not,
but
when
initially
proposing
this
idea,
I
was
considering
that
a
strategic
initiative
could
be
was
gonna,
be
something
that
you
know
if
the
project
didn't
become
aligned
on
it
or
come
up
with
a
solution
in
the
next.
You
know
one
to
two
years:
it
puts
the
project
at
risk.
C
Modules
would
be
an
example
of
this.
Openssl
would
be
an
example
of
this
just
looking
at
the
list
again,
our
governance
would
be
an
example
of
this
core
promise.
Api's
would
be
an
example
of
this
CVE
management.
I
think,
is
something
that's
good
for
us
to
be
doing,
but
I'm
not
convinced.
You
know
that
if
we
don't
do
it,
the
project
could
be
in
jeopardy.
C
Errormsgs
again,
you
know
something
that
I
think
the
project
could
be
in
jeopardy,
but
on
the
flip
side
you
know,
http/2
and
napi
are
not
necessarily
things
that
put
the
project
at
risk.
By
not
doing
them.
I
guess
you
could
say
that
napi
would,
because
of
it,
because
of
the
changes
to
how
we
do
native
modules,
but
I
think
that
perhaps
that's
worth
considering
being
one
of
the
facets
of
a
strategic
initiative
but
I'm
not
again,
you
know
I'm
more
just
trying
to
like
really
stay
some.
B
Yeah
I
I
think
that
that's
certainly
like
those
ones
are
ones
that
we
can.
We
should
highlight
they
I
I,
guess
what
I
was
thinking
when
I
looked
at
some
of
them
is
I.
It
would
be
good
for
us
to
provide
support
and
visibility
for
some
of
the
other
things
like
if
I
look
at
workers
right,
that's
kind
of
one
where
I
I
don't
know.
If
it's
going
to
cause,
you
know
put
the
project
in
jeopardy
and
also
something
hoping
we
can
support,
because
it's
interesting
and
potentially
quite
important
right.
B
B
C
I
guess,
like
perhaps
perhaps
my
like
biggest
gut
fear-
is
that
if
we
have
too
many
of
them-
and
they
are
not
being
run
by
champions-
who
are
incredibly
engaged
in
the
process
of
making
something-
a
strategic
initiative
that
we
potentially
water
down
the
concept-
and
it's
very
it's
very
likely
that
this
is
a
unfounded
fear.
But
that's
kind
of
my
biggest
concern
with
having
such
a
large
list
right.
B
Think
we
should
have
somebody
on
the
TSC
who
is
I.
Don't
know
if
you
know
champion
is
the
right
word,
but
we
need
somebody
who's,
olio,
who's,
the
link
to
the
TSE,
who
can
help
to
make
things
happen
and,
and
is
maybe
not
like.
You
said
in
the
past-
not
necessarily
doing
all
the
work,
but
is
has
the
link
in
the
connection
to
the
TSE
to
help
facilitate.
B
B
You
it's
more
of
a
like,
in
my
mind,
a
here's.
Some
here
are
the
things
that
are
broader
in
scope,
more
forward-looking
and
making
sure
that
they
get
the
support
they
need
and
attention.
So,
for
example,
if
it's
like
the
the
OpenSSL
one,
we
don't
get
an
update
and
you
know
a
couple
months.
We
should
probably
be
saying:
wait
a
sec
what's
going
on
there
and
because
it's
on
the
list
that'll
remind
us
to
check
on.
C
B
B
C
I
think
I
think
one
of
the
easiest
ways
to
do
it
might
be
to
literally
remove
everything
from
the
list
and
elicit
elicit
suggestions
from
the
TFC
at
large.
But
you
know
we
have
a
good
list,
so
I'm
not
really
sure
what
the
put
the
best
way
for
it,
I
think
maybe
taking
rods
point
there
and
coming
up
with
a
stronger
definition,
may
help
us
scope
it
a
bit
more.
B
C
James
has
created
a
doodle
with
time
suggestions
running
out
into
the
next.
You
know
like
two
weeks
with
a
bit
of
a
block
there
without
suggestive
dates
around
node
compy,
you
so
I
guess
to
anyone
who's
on
the
call
who's
interested
in
getting
involved,
who
hasn't
filled
it
out.
The
link
is
in
the
issue.
So
if
you
go
to
the
bottom
of
the
page,
there's
a
doodle
link
in
G,
shah's,
less-common,
I'm
gonna
drop
it
into
the
comments.
So
please,
you
know,
feel
free
to
fill
that
out.
C
B
Okay,
so
the
next
issue
is
no
GSM
in
a
fix
case
of
extensions
on
internal
boxing,
moves
you'll
see
to
admin
repo,
so
I
think
the
main
question
here
is:
if
people
are
comfortable
moving
the
code
of
conduct
out
of
the
TSE
repo
and
into
the
I'm
in
repo.
Instead,
there
was
some
some
suggestions
of
that.
That
might
not
be
a
good
idea,
so
added
it
on
to
the
agenda
for
discussion.
B
C
James
had
pushed
back
so
so
there
was
kind
of
two
different
things
here.
Let
me
get
it
one
more
time,
so
the
internal
docs
is
like
right.
Now
we
have
the
code,
the
the
moderation
guidelines
inside
of
the
the
moderation
policies
inside
of
it
min,
but
the
code
of
conduct
lives
in
the
TSE
james's
in
support
of
updating
and
permanently
moving
the
moderation
policy
there
and
having
it
live
in
one
place,
but
wanted
to
keep
the
code
of
conduct
in
the
TSC
repo.
A
It's
worth
noting
that
there
is
provisions
in
the
new
moderation
and
I
think
it's
just
the
moderation
policy
provisions
for
projects
vote
like
both
working
groups
and
I
guess
the
top
level
projects
maintaining
their
own.
Even
if
we
share
route
but
yeah
be
worth
hearing
what
the
objections
are.
Some
James
yeah.
B
C
If
I
recall
from
his
original
comments,
his
major
pushback
was
just
around
the
fact
that
we
just
moved
it
and
we
have
links
everywhere
pointing
to
the
TSE
repo
and
that
this
would
just
create
another
level
of
indirection
for
myself.
You
know,
since
everyone's
sharing
these
documents
right
now
and
there's
no
expectation
of
having
differences
between
the
TSE
and
the
comm
comes
go
to
conduct.
It
seems
like
a
for
that
reason.
It
should
be
in
a
mid
but
then
like
further
having
it
in
two
places.
A
James's
point
there
is
that,
but
the
other
point
is
that
he
he
thinks
that
the
TSE
will
be
more
directly
responsible
for
ensuring
its
enforcement
within
the
technical
project
I'm.
How
about
we
defer
this
one
until
a
meeting
with
James
is
on
personally
I'm,
fairly
indifferent
about
where
it
lives?
I
take
James's
point
there,
but
I
also
like
the
I
like
the
efficiency,
it's
same
doc,
one
place
so
either.
B
B
Okay,
I
guess
it's
not,
then
let's
give
everybody
back
some
time
back.
Yes,
everybody
can
stay
on
after
we
close
the
recording,
but
thanks
for
everybody
who
tuned
in
sorry
actually
I
forgot
to
see
if
there
was
a
question
or
an
answer,
so
do
that
and
before
we
had
bullets
be
there
any
questions
in
the
issue
will
get
people
a
few
minutes
to
add
them.
So
you
can
add
them
to
the
original
issue
issue
if
you're
watching
on
YouTube
or
listening
on
YouTube
or
in
the
IRS
fee.