►
Description
B
B
B
D
C
B
E
E
Organizations
and
that
everything
adds
up.
We
are
now
gonna
have
a
police's
team
that
is
fat,
so
that
could
mean
sort
of
changes
to
how
we
do
things,
but
other
than
that
things
I
may
have
been
continuing
his
room.
We
went
through.
You
have
got
a
v6
directs
minor
coming
very
soon
in
the
Aussies,
don't
know
so
just
going
through
everything
for
that
and.
E
E
E
B
D
D
B
Think
we
should
go
through
the
items
and
see
what
business
we
can
do.
Obviously
we
don't
have
to
make
a
final
decision,
but
it's
probably
you
know.
Since
we
took
the
client
get
together,
it
was
probably
good
to
go
through
to
see
what
we
can
do.
If
there
is
anything
I,
don't
you
and
as
a
little
bits.
B
D
D
D
Does
have
escaped
analysis
turned
off
and
the
table
can
talk
to
the
performance
changes
that
we've
seen
with
escape
analysis,
but
this
is
due
to
security
vulnerability
in
v8.
There's
debate
about
whether
or
not
our
security,
its
security,
vulnerability
and
noted
on
the
bigger
issues.
To
keep
in
mind
is
that
this
version
of
escape
analysis
that
exists
on
6.1
and
lower
is
buggy
and
has
this
ability
and
for
the
future
be
maintained
by
v8.
D
D
D
B
C
B
C
However,
in
certain
cases,
like
the
benefits
of
escape
analysis,
it's
it's
critical
to
you
for
you
to
use
some
of
the
new
language
features
like
the
structuring
and
other
bits,
so
I
think
it
might
be
better
to
actually
maybe
ship
six
point
two
III
this
is
coming
comes
from
me.
At
least
it
I
would
really
like
for
for
for
the
earth
to
end
this
ill
for
this
entire
cycle,.
C
D
So
with
that
being
said,
host
in
that
issue
in
that
issue,
for
the
plural
question
one
more
time
with
a
call
to
the
TSC,
the
clerk
West
is
all
ready
to
go.
The
changelog
is
up-to-date
and
the
build
has
been
done
so
like
the
only
thing
left
to
do,
for
the
release
is
to
promote
it.
At
this
point,
I
will
wait.
You
know
maybe
like
six
or
seven
hours
from
now,
which
gives
some
people
on
the
west
coast
time
to
wake
up
and
review
it,
and
unless
I
have
any
objections,
I
will
ship
8.7
dr.
D
today
as
it
is
with
this
paper,
bounce
is
turned
off
and
we
can
revisit
other
questions
regarding
stock.
You
know
at
a
later
time,
yeah
we
have
some
time
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
we
had
discussed
is
work.
You
know
considering
phobias
communicate
revisit.
This
would
be
even
looking
at
upgrading
the
v8
during
the
LPS
pickle
as
long
in
a
minor
as
long
as
we're
able
to
show
that
it's
stable.
That
is
not
regressing
anything
and
that's
not
going
to
cause
any
problems.
D
B
D
D
G
F
F
D
B
D
D
F
B
F
F
D
We've
just
been
working
on
getting
six
point,
two
to
build,
which
I
did
some
work
over
the
last
24
hours
and
someone
from
the
v8
team
got
some
sense.
We
now
have
almost
everything
green,
forcible
went
to
on
master.
We,
the
single
test,
failing
on
AIX
as
we're
now
at
the
point
that
we're
Anna
could
start
doing
the
ABI
work.
B
D
D
F
D
F
Yeah
I
gotta
get
that
just
wondering
if,
from
you
know,
when
we
asked
about
this,
what
that
was
once
is
when
that
made
sense.
I,
like
you
know,
even
if
we're
not
impacted,
then
so
what
it
just
seems
like
there's,
there's
obviously
some
kind
of
vector
there
that
maybe
could
even
get
bigger
if
people
start
poking
around
at
it.
B
Yeah
I
just
commented
in
the
issue
that
miles
posted
because
it
wasn't
clear
in
there
that
that
would
be
the
path
board
that
basically
the
discussion
here
was
that
we'd
go
with
option
one
sole
and
six
one
with
escape
analysis
disabled.
Unless
there's
objections,
then
the
throne
in
the
next
little,
while
right.
B
D
So
I
mean
I'm
gonna,
preface
by
saying
that
the
build
team
does
amazing
work,
and
this
isn't
meant
this
doesn't
mention
it
in
the
negative
way,
but
I
just
wanted
to
bring
attention
to
the
TSC
kind
of
an
ongoing
issue.
That's
been
going
readable
stream
in
canary
in
the
coalmine
has
been
broken
for
about
nine
months.
Now
it
initially
became
broken.
D
Did
a
temporary
directories
missing
being
missing,
since
you
know
porn
Fedora
23,
but
the
first
issue
was
open
and
marched
by
Matteo
and
subsequent
issues
were
open
by
myself.
It
was
eventually
there
was
a
patch
that
was
landed
in
in
some
of
the
ansible
stuff
that
should
have
fixed
this
on
the
11th,
but
I
was
afraid.
I
was
not
there.
If
those
scripts
had
actually
been
run,
it
seems
like
there
may
have
been.
D
D
I
know
that
we
have
other
tools
that
are
available
and
github
now
such
as
projects,
and
maybe
that
could
be
a
way
to
examine
it,
but
I
mostly
just
wanted
to
kind
of
like
bring
this
up.
So
the
technical
steering
committee
and
we
get
up
at
the
cold
working
group
as
well.
It's
just
a
general
awareness,
although
I
guess
you
know,
50%
of
the
people
in
the
room
right
now
are
from
the
blood
working
groups.
D
Most
people
made
some
netthreat
already,
but
I
guess
I
can
I
can
leave
it
to
the
floor
here
and
I'm
open.
Most
people
think
that
I've
kind
of
jumped
the
gun
and
want
to
say
so.
But
it's
mostly,
this
didn't
feel
like
the
kind
of
thing
that
should
have
taken
this
long
and
it's
like
maybe
a
higher-level
process
problem
and
I'm
just
interested
in
how
people
can
avoid.
D
H
G
F
F
So,
okay,
so
we
can,
we
can
get
into
this
visit
here.
I
think
I
think
it's
worth
going
into
the
history
here,
because
I
I'd
love
to
remove
you
to
to
remove
this
dependency,
even
from
area
ansible,
making
this
directory,
because
it
seems
itself
to
be
brittle
like
let's
put
it
into
our
setup
scripts
for
forgiving
Jenkins
or,
let's
put
it
in
sitcom
itself,
or
something
like
that,
where
it's
less.
B
F
It's
this
instance,
you
you,
you
did
mention
whether
you
thought
that
maybe
github
wasn't
working
for
prioritizing
and
I.
Think
I
think
your
assessments
probably
right
there.
So
my
my
feeling
on
this
one
is
that
none
of
us
really
saw
this
as
urgent
as
urgent
as
you
did.
You
know
we
we
feel
urgency
in
terms
of
what
we,
what
is
breaking
for
us,
like
I'm,
currently
fixing
a
bunch
of
raspberry
pies
because
they're
right
in
my
face
and
also
get
picky
people
paying
hear
about
them.
F
So
that
gives
me
that
sense
of
urgency,
github
prioritization,
is
completely
broken.
For
me,
my
github
queue
is
just
so
messy
if
I
can't
manage
it
anymore,
so
I'm
wondering
if
people
have
suggestions
for
prioritization
that
I
think
that'd
be
a
good
discussion
to
have
and
would
probably
be
helpful
here,
because
it
sounds
like
if
this
is.
If
this
is
a
major
issue,
that's
been
falling
through
the
cracks.
Then
yeah
we've
got
a
broken
process
that
we
need
to
deal
with
right.
B
G
Wouldn't
something
like
infrastructure
I
mean
if
I
understand
this
correctly,
it's
it's
like
okay,
well,
infrastructure
problem!
You
can't
just
send
anybody
at
it.
It's
not
like
you
can
just
throw
it
out
there
and
be
like
hey
anybody
work
on
this.
That
seems
to
need
a
lot
more
specialization,
there's
a
small
set
of
people
that
can
actually
do
anything
about
it.
You
know.
F
We
did
a
lot
of
people.
Do
have
actually
access
to
do
this,
though,
there's
a
large
number
of
people
with
access
to
that
all
the
machines
that
would
need
fixing
it's
just
a
matter
of
the
foot.
Well
for
those
of
us
that
wouldn't
know
how
to
do
it
in
the
first
place.
It's
not
it's.
Just
it's
not
a
quick
job
and
then
for
other
people.
It's
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
do
it,
like
you
think,
is
the
challenge.
So
it's
not
just
a
oh
there's.
A
job
I
can
do
in
five
minutes.
F
It's
a
job.
I
have
to
write,
I,
drop
everything
and
go
and
get
my
head
into
this
thing
and
yeah,
and
you
know
I,
guess
I,
guess
one
of
the
ways
that
our
system
is
broken
is
that
to
get
attention
in
infrastructure.
You
have
to
be
in
someone's
face
and
that's
not
such
a
good
thing,
but
I
think
that's
where
we've
got
to.
Unfortunately,.
D
Few
things
to
edge
really
first
ride,
like
you
express
the
sentiment
that
I
very
much
feel
to
it's
like
you,
don't
want
to
just
be
like
launching
all
the
ansible
scripts
and
we'll
be
launching
all
the
boxes
or
spinning
everything
up.
I
do
think
that
is
like
one
part
of
it
and
then
the
other
part
is
the
urgency
like
it
needs.
To
be
honest.
This
is
this
is
gone
for
six
months
partially
because
it
isn't
super
urgent.
D
Even
to
me
right
like
it's
not
the
end
of
the
world,
it's
annoying
when
said
game
isn't
green,
but
for
the
most
part
we're
only
using
it
so
much,
but
I
do
think
that
like
this
is
something
that
should
be
to
a
certain
extent
prioritize,
but
this
is
a
great
example
of
one
of
those
ones.
It's
easy
to
lose
track
because
you
know
I
think
about
it.
Probably
once
a
month,
every
time
I
go
through
and
do
a
release
and
good
annoyed
and
then
I
forget
about
it
until
the
next
thing.
D
You
know
it
bothers
me
a
month
later
and
that
makes
it
really
easy
to
just
not
get
handled.
I
do
think
the
github
boards
are
a
way
that
we
could
explore
that
where
we
could
just
make.
You
know
a
prioritization
queue
or
something
like
that
that
we
could
throw
things
into
that
could
just
act
as
kind
of
look
at
you
for
the
working
group
to
go
through.
D
But
I
also
do
think
that
that
this
raises
questions
like
like
higher
level
questions
about
the
agility
of
our
current
infrastructure
set
up
and
what
we
could
benefit
from
a
higher
level
of
investment
in
making
our
infrastructure
more
agile
and
I
apologize
for
all
the
buzzwords
in
there.
But
that's
the
best
way
I'm
not
going
to
describe
it.
B
B
B
B
D
What
had
been
taken
there
included
like
Sarah
Novotny,
our
new
board
member
was
active
in
that
conversation
and
Tracy,
Hines
and
I
can
draw
a
number
of
photos
were
taken
of,
like
you
know,
of
the
different
values
that
have
been
serviced
and
I.
Think
the
general
book
was
to
do
more
of
these
in
different
areas.
So
god,
if
you
wanted
to
run
one
of
these
values
where
certain
value
workshops
in
Australia,
that
could
be
really
awesome.
Joy,
if
you
wanted
to
run
it
in
China.
That
could
be
really
good.
D
D
D
Absolutely
we
definitely
need
to
make
similarity
around
next
steps.
I
do
think.
Part
of
assumption
was
that
this
was
going
to
be
a
multi-month
effort
towards
getting
towards
a
value
doc
than
as
an
input
from
the
variety
of
our
community
around
the
world
and
that
I'm
imagining
that,
since
we
just
came
out
of
note
interactive
as
the
beginning
of
the
week
and
we're
seeing
it
as
a
multi-month
thing,
no
we're
just
you
know
it's
just
a
matter
of
probably
like
couple
weeks
to
to
figure
out
who
the
owners
are
so.
F
B
F
Yeah
I
guess
yeah
I,
guess
I,
guess
the
probably
one
of
the
concerns
there
is
that
if
it's,
if
it's
referencing
something
that
doesn't
exist,
then
you
know
somebody
wants
to
come
and
try
and
enforce
this.
Then
then,
what
are
they
referencing
it
against?
Until
they
get
do
they
either
get
too
much
leeway
or
nor
enough
leeway
in
that
yeah
I.
F
F
And
I
haven't
actually
looked
at
this
latest
revision,
but
it's
changes
a
bit,
but
they
one
of
the
things
about
the
board
thing
was
when
you
communicate
publicly
you're
supporting
what
the
board
has
decided.
Like
you
know,
even
if
you
were
a
dissenting
member,
you
know
you
shut
up
and
swallow
it
and
just
support
the
board.
That's
just
how
you
do
it.
The
difference
that
we
have
here
is
that
where
most
of
it
is
almost
all
of
our
decisions
are
public,
and
so
it's
not
like.
F
If
you
dissent,
then
it's
not
knowing
that
you
don't
dissent,
but
the
bigger
concern
there
is
that
if
we,
the
kinds
of
decisions
that
we
make
on
a
technical
level,
particularly
we're
not
locking
ourselves
in
in
the
future
and
so
to
be
to
be
hypothetical,
this
is
ridiculous
accountable.
But
let's
say
we
decide
to.
F
As
a
chair
see,
we
decide
to
remove
all
of
the
sink
methods
from
there
from
FS,
because
we
say:
okay,
look,
we!
This
is
the
wrong
way
to
do.
No
we're
gonna
remove
sink
and
you
shouldn't
use
them
and
say:
okay,
that's
voted
on
and
it
comes
down
and
passes
and
then
so
as
a
TC,
okay.
Well,
we
all
agree,
that's
just
what
we
do.
We
go
out
there
and
support
that
we,
you
know
I
might
have
dissented
but
I
support.
That
decision
does
this.
Does
this
document,
then?
F
In
what
ways
might
we
be
stifling
that
discussion
and
it's
it's
wrong
to
kick
up
controversy
about
it
and
go
out
there
and
on
social
media
and
say
you
know,
I
didn't
support
this
and
it
was
terrible
decision,
I'm
gonna,
but
is
there
a
potential
for
stifling
discussion
on
decisions
that
we
may
have
already
made
that
some
of
us
think
me
to
be
revisited
in
the
future?
That's
that's
the
hypothetical
I'm
thinking
about
here
that
I.
D
I
can
speak
directly
to
that,
at
least
in
my
reading
and
I
think
we
can
add
more
explicit
language
to
that
as
well.
I
don't
see
that
I
actually
could
see
that
as
being
one
of
the
major
distinctions
between
this
document
and
the
board
document
and
I'm
assuming
part
of
that
is
fiduciary
duty,
but
this
document
I'm
viewing
it
as
it's.
In
current
like
it's
basically
saying
that
you
should
be
respectful
of
the
outcomes,
but
it's
not
saying
that
you
can't
be
critical
of
them.
D
That
language
was
a
little
more
explicit
in
an
earlier
edit
and
it
seems
like
the
language
has
become
a
little
more
ambiguous,
but
at
least
the
language
that
was
more
explicit
in
an
earlier
iteration
was
explicit
about
the
fact
that
technical
steering
committee
members
are
able
to
be
critical
of
decisions
as
long
as
it's
done
in
a
respectful
way,
and
in
you
know,
in
good
faith
and
the
words
I'm
using
right
now
are
not
necessarily
explicit
language.
I'm
sorry,
I
may
not
be
doing
it.
Justice
more
just
I
was
trying
to
talk
about
the.
F
Spirit,
there's
two
sentences.
They
really
say
when
the
seasons
are
made
within
the
established
guidelines
and
policies
of
the
project,
those
in
leadership
roles
and
have
a
responsibility
to
uphold
and
respect
the
decision
even
disagree
with
it.
This
is
especially
important
in
external
communications,
for
essential
social
media,
etc,
etcetera,
I
think
the
sentiment
is
right.
F
You
know
on
social
media,
particularly
and
that's
been
very
unhelpful
about
particulars,
but
that
I
wonder
if
we
could
soften
that
language
a
bit
more
because
it's
you
know,
you
respect
it
sure
you
disagree
with
it,
but
maybe
just
needs
an
addition
that
any
any
further
engagement
on
particular
issues
where
there's
disagreement
on
the
thing
that's
been
taken
should
be
done
it
you
know
in
a
respectful
and
constructive
manner,
because
as
long
as
you're
doing
that
it
should
be
fine.
Just
don't
go.
B
A
D
I
was
gonna
say,
like
I,
don't
even
think
for
me,
she's,
safe
with
people
talking
about
it
publicly.
If
it's
done
in
a
respectful
way,
you
know
you
can
be
unhappy
about
a
decision
not
be
critical
of
it
and
talk
about
the
ways
that
will
work
forward
on
getting
towards
a
you
know,
a
mutually
beneficial
place
and
I
think
I.
Think
like
to
at
least
to
me.
The
spirit
of
it
is
mostly
about
just
you
know
if
we're
coming
the
decisions
to
not
undermine
those.
If
you
want
to
remain
on
the
committee's
yeah.
B
D
A
great
idea
or
like
if
we
land,
promise,
api's
and
someone's
like
oh
looks
like
post
mortem,
is
screwed
like
that's
very
different
than
being
like.
You
know
what
promises
has
landed
and
here
are
the
things
we're
gonna
work
on
to
improve
post-mortem
analysis
like
those
very,
very
different
ways
of
approaching
it.
B
Right
so
I
guess
the
initial
question
was
like
because
we
can
still
I.
You
know,
I
think
that
sounds
like
there's
some
concrete
suggestions
we
can
make
in
the
document,
but
the
the
fundamental
was
like.
Can
we
get
something
like
this
landed
without
waiting
several
months
for
the
values
discussion
to
complete.
D
B
H
G
So
anything
about
that
this
is
just
very
abstract,
but
like
I,
just
thinking
about
Supreme
Court
and
how
you
know
they
make
a
decision
and
they
write
basically
write
up
either
for
or
against,
but
then
yeah
once
it's
done,
it's
just
done
and
so
going
back
to
like
the
promise.
Api
thing.
I
could
totally
see
myself
writing
at
the
current
time.
I
don't
believe
implementing
a
promise.
Only
API
is
a
good
idea,
because
we
still
lack
the
necessary
means
of
doing
proper
course.
G
Post-Mortem
analysis,
basically
just
like
getting
out
very
clearly
how
I
feel,
but
then,
after
that,
I
don't
like
I,
don't
feel
the
need
to
pursue
because
I've
said
exactly
what
I
need
to
say:
I,
don't
need
to
eat
a
dead
horse
right
and
from
that
point
yeah.
Let's
this
is
my
problems
with
it
and
instead
of
continually
reiterating
the
issues,
I've
had
I'm
going
to
try
and
solve
those
sorry,
I
haven't
it's
7
a.m.
here
and
I
was
left
all
night.
So
sorry,
if
I.
B
B
Okay,
so
I
think
yeah
all
talking
come
I'll
talk,
bring
it
up
in
calm,
come
as
well
and
with
William
in
particular,
just
to
see
if
you
know
what
people
think
in
terms
of
should
be
trying
to
push
push
this
to
closure.
And,
of
course
you
know
if
the
values
come
in
a
form
that
we
need
to
completely
change
it.
We
can
do
that,
but
I
think
otherwise,
just
letting
it
hang
out
there.
It's
not
the
so
device,
okay
we're
doing
while
we're
at
time.
B
F
The
other,
the
other
one,
that's
interesting,
that
stood
out
to
me
here
was
the
position
number
one,
five
three
to
four,
which
was
the
sent
400
bad
request
on
par
zero.
If
you
haven't
engaged
with
that
one,
that's
actually
really
worth
looking
at,
because
it's
a
breaking
change,
but
it
goes
to
this
whole
HTTP,
strict
thing
that
we
have.
We
keep
on
running
into
and
read
that
one.
If
you
haven't
already
weigh
in.