►
From YouTube: 2021-07-01 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).
B
B
So
welcome
everyone.
This
is
the
node.js
technical
student
committee
meeting
for
july
1st
2021.
We
are
gonna,
go
through
the
agenda
items
as
usual,
but
first
does
anyone
have
any
announcements.
C
B
Announcements:
okay,
moving
to
the
agenda
items,
then
the
first
one
is
adding
html
form
data
handling
to
car.
This
is
issue
38943
on
the
car
repository.
B
C
There
were
some
questions
related
to
from
from
dustin
a
friend
of
mine,
asking
if
to
add
the
form,
api
and
possibly
even
mine,
to
some
extent.
That
was
also
mentioned
to
the
to
the
discussion,
and
there
was.
C
Some
discussion
back
and
forth
also
in
mind
to
not
like
there
was
really
not
clear
what
we
wanted
to
do
with
this
kind
of
things
that
he
went
back
to
the
discussion
of
what
should
be
in
core.
What
should
not
be
in
core
opened
by
robert
so
to
some
extent
it's
probably
better
to
postpone
until
that
happens,
because
I
think
it's
you
know,
that's
very.
B
So
it
makes
sense
to
remove
the
agenda
label
and
to
the
other
issue
is
resolved.
Okay,.
C
Yeah,
I
will
write
it
down,
so
we
will.
D
E
I've
added
some
links
to
the
to
be
enough
to
be
in
core
issue
from
this,
so
we
have
more
context.
B
So
moving
to
the
next
one,
which
I
think
is
going
to
be
the
same
as
this
one
future
of
node
http
client
issue,
38523
on
the
car
repository.
E
Kind
of
goes
back
to
it's
seen
actually
the
original
discussion
here,
but
then
we
had
a
separate
discussion
on.
Why
are
we
developing
something
from
scratch?
Why
aren't
we
trying
to
improve
the
existing
http
client
code
and
there
was
some
controversy
around
that?
I'm
not
sure
matthia.
Do
you
have
any
comments
in
that
regard?.
C
We
have
proven
it
already
so
many
times
we
can
fix
it
and
improve
it.
If
we
are
willing
to
accept
breakage
or
knowledge
through
the
clients
of
them
everybody
using
that
library,
I
don't
think
that
is,
that
is
against
some
of
our
core
values.
So
the
only
reasoning,
the
only
workable
path
is
to
develop
something
new.
C
Like
well,
I
prototyped
a
little
at
the
beginning
to
see
if
something
else
would
work
better
and
it
does,
it
does
work
better.
So
I
don't
think
there
is
much
that
I
don't
think
is
salvageable.
To
my
some
extent,
I
would
recommend
market
legacy,
marking
it
legacy
and
fixing
value
somebody
can
fix
bugs,
but
not
try
to
fix
long-standing
issues
that
are
in
there
and
leave
them
as
legacy.
Essentially
like
this.
Those
words
need
to
stay
there
and
we
we
are
happy
to
keep
them
there
forever.
E
I
I
I
guess
one
of
the
other
topics
in
that
matter
was
regarding
so
in
order
to
you
know,
even
get
to
ditch
out
of
experimental.
So
to
say
we
need
to
have
a
larger
code
base
and
that's
why
we
wanted
to
have
something
in
the
documentation.
E
C
E
C
C
As
experimenter
and
not
mark
it
as
legacy
okay,
but
the
it
doesn't
change
the
reality
of
the
situation
like
there
are
very
few
people,
maintaining
it
and
those
few
people
that
do
most
of
the
work
says
well.
This
is
this
code
base
is
not
like
the
long-standing
issues
that
we
have
are
not
fixable
on
this
without
breaking
everybody,
yeah,
which
you
know
if
the.
D
C
C
E
E
E
C
Yeah,
well,
that's
the
situation
anyway.
We
need
to
get
a
replacement
in
and
and
be
happy
with
that.
Okay,
so
I
I
might
be
comfortable
like
for
for
undigi.
I
might
be
comfortable
in
trying
to
get
it
in
for
the
in
master
as
as
a
random,
mandarine
depth
or
something
like
that,
and
then
we
see
how
it
goes.
C
C
It
won't
be
good
for
me
to
say
differently
in
in
a
call
or
any
public
planning,
so
we
might
not
agree
on
it,
but
it's
it's
also
robust,
like
it
does
what
it
says,
but
those
long.
If
you
have
one
of
those
issues
you
should
switch
to
to
unditch
as
soon
as
possible
like
there
is,
we
could
probably
articulate
what
the
issues
key
issues
are,
robert,
so
that
it's
so
that
it's
it's
probably
clear
for
everybody
that
doesn't
have
that
context.
B
E
C
I'll
probably
share
the
document
with
you,
robert,
so
that
we
work
on
the
on
the
list
of
of
problems,
and
that
are
there,
and
that
would
be
definitely
better
shared
with
the
with
the
proper
client.
B
B
Okay,
let's
move
to
the
next
one,
then
migration
of
car
modules
to
primordials.
B
Okay,
so
moving
to
the
next
one
resigning
from
cpc
voting
member,
I
open
this
one
to
communicate
that
I
will
be
resigning
from
the
cpc
voting
member
and.
B
I'm
looking
for
someone
to
take
those
responsibilities
for
representing
the
csc
on
cpc.
B
B
Like
onboarding
projects,
helping
with
governance
for
projects
and.
B
Other
things
like
code
of
conduct,
shared
current
projects.
B
B
C
It's
a
michael,
it's
a
video,
but
like
I've
been
feeling
that
role
for
a
while,
then
I
had
to
scale
back
some
of
my
call
like
I
I
could
take
it,
but
I
can't
make
the
calls
like
the
problem.
I
need
to
the
time
zones
it's
these
time
zones.
It's
rare
that
I
can
join
at
this
this
late
in
the
day
here
at
this
point,
so
I
it's.
I
can
take
the
call
the
the
meeting
load
essentially
so.
B
D
C
Know
you
talk
from
me,
I
can
take
it
back,
essentially
it's,
but
I
cannot
make
any
promise
to
join
any
meeting.
So
we
need
to
check
with
the
cpc
if
that
is
okay,
because
there
is,
there
was
an
expectation
on
that
to
be
involved,
and
I,
while
I
can
be
involved
on
the
like
more
voting
responsibilities
and
approval
stuff
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
I
don't
have
the
time
for.
B
Okay,
we
can
contact
cpc
to
see
if
it's
okay
for
you
to
join
without
joining
the
meetings.
B
E
I
think
an
interesting
example
in
this
context
is
a
readable
stream
and
how
that
works
or
doesn't
work
or
mateo,
because
basically
the
idea
there
is
that
it
is
in
core.
But
then
we
pull
it
out
of
core.
C
Well,
we
I
haven't,
I
haven't
updated
it
in
a
long
while
it's
on
my
to-do
list
of
things
to
do
long
and
it's
it's
one
of
the
most
downloaded
modules
from
npm.
So
half
of
the
most
all
people
using
node
core
audi
node
use
that
module
it's
what
makes
the
stream
what
has
made
the
stream
ecosystem
stable
for
a
long
while
so
that
we
could
evolve
node.js
without
breaking
all
those
modules,
so
which
is
a
great
thing
and
they
are
all
backward
compatible.
C
On
the
other
hand,
it
could
potentially
like
note
core-
not
streams,
could
potentially
live
in
an
external
package
that
should
not
be
a
problem
for
them
and
then
importing
them
to
not
like
again.
The
key
part
is
that
they
need
to
be.
It
needs
to
be
bundle.
The
node,
because
nodes
depend
on
it
for
everything,
like
all
the
modules
depend
on
that
library,
on
all
that
stuff.
E
C
E
C
E
C
Nope,
I
totally
agree
with
that.
That
is,
that
is
also
part
of
the
reason
why
umbc
was
developed
outside
of
core
from
the
beginning,
because
it
was
we
needed
to
iterate
on.
I
don't
know,
maybe
20
different
designs
before
reaching
out
to
something
that
we'll
be
happy
with.
To
be
honest,
like
the
fact
yeah
we
settled
on
is
actually
pretty
great,
but
the
the
the
in
between
step
and
the
middle
layers
and
the
abstraction
is.
You
know
he
got
a
good
evolutionary,
that's
in
in
there.
So
like
from
my
point
of
view,
it's.
C
If
it's
stable,
if
it
has
a
good
api,
if
it's,
if
it
can
be
specified,
then
it's
great
to
have
them
in
core
if,
if
not,
then
not
needed
there.
C
Don't
know
I'm
just
putting
it
out
loud,
okay,
it's
it's!
We
probably
need
to
strengthen
our
lts
and
backward
compatibility
concept
inside
london.
So.
E
E
So
then,
now
we're
a
little
bit
talking
about.
E
F
C
F
C
I
would
I
would
include
on
ditch
as
well
as
the
public
api.
There
is
a
good
reason
for
this.
It's
only
she
fixes
one
of
the
old
problems
of
the
old
http
library
might
not
be
the
best
api
that
is
possible
for
that,
but
it
provides
internal
support
for
mocking
without
having
to
monkey
patch
http
like
knock.
Does
it's
pretty
bad?
Oh
it's
one
of
the
reasons
why
we
can't
change
anything
like
all
those
monkey
modules
in
the
ecosystem
that
goes
around
and
monkey
patches,
the
hell
out
of
notepad.
C
Essentially,
so
you
know
it's,
I
would
still
expose
it,
but
that's
my
that's
my
preference,
but
if
we
don't
want
to
expose
it,
that's
also
good.
If
we
want
to
expose
it
in
an
ugly
nasty
way
and
see
look,
this
is
there
if
you
use
it
your
problem
to
be
honest,
okay,
consider
it
low
level
sort
of
light,
exposing.
E
I
I
don't
know
developer.
I
would
much
rather
have
a
niche
outside
because
still
developing
in
core,
you
know
takes
time.
You
have
to
compile
every
time
you
change
something,
etc,
etc.
So
it
would
be
much
nicer
to
be
able
to
continue,
have
high
velocity
development
outside
and
then
you
know,
when
you
do
an
lts
7dc,
you
render
it
in
into
node.
E
C
B
Yeah,
I
like
the
rendering
approach.
I
think
the
only
thing
that's
still
not
clear
and
we're
not
gonna
clarify
today.
But
what
are
the
conditions
to
render
a
module
in
car?
B
And
I
think
that's
something
that
you're
probably
going
to
still
face
some
pushback
unless
it's
defined,
because
rendering
is
good
and
we
have
done
that
every
time.
E
But
I
guess
how
we
would
like
to
do.
It
is
relevant
to
know
in
order
to
decide
when
we
do.
B
B
A
A
Yeah
well,
this
this
doesn't
have
to
happen
in
this
meeting,
but,
as
someone
has
just
reached
out
to
me
privately,
a
lot
of
this
applies
to
to
to
efforts
to
get
the
mind.
A
lot
of
the
things
we're
talking
about
are
relevant
to
efforts
to
get
my
module
within
core,
and
that
might
be
worth
a
conversation,
although
not
today.
Maybe
that
can
happen
in
the
in
the
in
the
issue.
A
A
A
lot
of
the
issues
around
around
how,
when
dc
and
other
things,
would
what
you
do
or
don't
become
part
of
you
know.
A
lot
of
the
issues
we're
talking
about
today
are
are
relevant
to
other
modules,
in
particular
the
mind
the
mind
module
as
a
history
of
being
proposed
to
be,
you
know,
brought
into
core
and
feature
requests,
and
so
anyway,
I'm
just
I'm
mentioning
that
and.
E
Yeah,
I've
already
added
to
the
to
be
or
not
to
be
core
a
list
of
examples
and
there's
a
link
to
it
as
well.
So
that
gives
context,
I
think,
all
of
those
things
in
that
list
is
yeah.
E
C
Thanks
cool
yeah,
should
we
schedule
a
dark
meeting
to
talk
about
this,
because
I
think
this
it
seems
like
not.
Everybody
is
interested
in
that
discussion
and,
and
we
have
people
not
in
the
tsc
that
are
very
willing
to
to
talk
about
it.
So
I
I.
A
C
Yeah,
I
think
that
would
be
it's
probably
better,
not
to
be
left
to
to
ask
to
to
decide
and
yeah.
That's
that's
cool.
I
I
will
ask
somebody
else
to
coordinate.
I'm
sorry
I
I
would
love
to,
but
I
can't
right
now.
My
life
is
a
little
bit
complicated
for
a
lot
of
reasons.
So
I'm
sorry
one
including
a
seven
months
old
baby.
So
I
would
not
ask
to
I'm
happy
to
join
but
not
taking
any
coordination
activities.
Sorry
for
sorry,.
A
Maybe
we
can
just
sort
of
put
a
call
out
in
the
in
the
to
be
or
not
to
be
in
core
issue.
E
A
We
want
people
who
are
highly
engaged
in
in
contributing
to
node
I,
and
at
this
point
in
time
I
don't
know
that
it's
helpful
to
have
like
people
who
just
want
their
features
in
you
know.
You
know
we
just
want
fetch
in
core
yeah,
so
I
would
be
inclined
to
leave
it
in
the
tsc
repo
for
now.
But
but
I
I
don't
know,
that's
just
my
opinion,
I'll
defer
to
everybody
else
on
that.
A
So
how
about
mera
leaves
the
note
and
the
comment
in
there
and
then
we
can
just
ping
individuals
in
subsequent
comments,
and
if
someone
wants
to
ping
all,
if
you
want
to
ping
all
the
collaborators
that
would
be
appropriate,
but
I
don't
know
that
that's
necessary.
That's
gonna
that
is
gonna
reach
a
lot
of
people
who
who
won't
wanna.
You.
D
B
B
Okay,
moving
to
the
next
one
which
teams
should
be
allowed
to
land
pure
requests
in
node.js
node.
So
for
context
with
the
introduction
of
the
commit
view,
we
all
we
started
allowing
the
triagers
team
to
land
prerequests,
though,
as
well
via
the
commit
queer
label.
B
B
We
raised
again
having
a
requirement
for
approval
from
code
owners
on
progress
and
there's
also
suggestions
to
have
a
manual
label
which
forces
someone
to
land
it
manually
instead
of
using
document
queue.
B
Argentinian
has
any
thoughts
that
would
like
to
share
about
non-collaborators
being
able
to
land
pull
requests
are
more
more
precisely
triagers,
being
able
to
land
proquests.
A
Yeah,
I
I'd
be
I'm
inclined
to
err
on
the
side
of
giving
triagers
more
responsibility
and
if
it
doesn't
work
out,
we
can
always
pull
back.
A
A
They
cannot,
they
could
they
could
land
pull
requests
again
with
the
with
the
with
the
label
that
has
the
bot
landed,
they
they
wouldn't
be
able
to
push
to
master
themselves
the
master
branch
themselves-
and
I
I
think,
that's
fine,
and
if
they're-
and
if
there
are
problems,
then
we
can
come
back
and
talk
about.
A
What
is
the
problem
that
we
have
an
issue
with
our
process
or
is
the
problem
that
we
really
need
collaborative
you
know,
do
we
need
to
automate
more
or
do
we
really
need
human
intervention
on
the
part
of
collaborators,
but
I'd
be
inclined
to
just
let
them
do
it
at
this
point.
A
A
And,
and
and
and
if
that
ends
up
being
an
issue
in
you
know
down
the
road
for
whatever
reason
we
can
always
modify
the
bot
to
like
you
know,
I
don't
know
anyway
yeah,
but
it's
right,
yeah.
It
checks.
B
Okay,
anything
else
in
this
issue.
B
And
he
needs
approval
to
land
the
proquest.
I
saw
the
request
I
have
not
approved
because
not
being
a
lawyer,
I
feel
super
anxious
about
approving
such
a
change.
So
I
would
like
more
context
before
approving.
I
asked
for
the
context
on
the
issue.
B
B
Yeah,
but
if
other
folks
are
comfortable
approving
the
proquest
is
open.
Who
can
provide
context.
D
B
B
Okay,
we
have
nine
minutes
left.
Should
we
go
to
the
private
section?
B
Stop
the
live
streaming
then
thank
everyone
from
joining.