►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/127
Anna Henningsen - https://github.com/addaleax (Observer)
Bryan Hughes - https://github.com/nebrius (TSC)
Colin Ihrig - https://github.com/cjihrig (TSC)
James M Snell - https://github.com/jasnell (TSC)
Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
Josh Gavant - https://github.com/joshgav (Observer/Microsoft)
Michael Dawson - https://github.com/mhdawson (Observer)
Mikeal Rogers - https://github.com/mikeal (Observer/Node.js Foundation)
Tracy Hinds - https://github.com/hackygolucky (Observer/Node.js Foundation)
William Kapke - https://github.com/williamkapke (Observer)
A
A
The
post
mortem
working
groups
and
things
with
what
we're
gonna
do
some
repositories.
They
are
possibly
moving
them
around.
Under
the
note
foundation,
we
had
some
discussion
of
what
we're
going
to
be
doing
about
RC
moderation,
I
believe
that
is
still
in
discussion
on
github
at
this
point.
So
there's
no
real
updates.
There
we
made
some
more
work
on
a
defining
nodejs
core
I,
like
a
Dawson's,
been
working
on
the
pull
request
for
that
and
regular
role
of
reporting
for
active
working
groups.
A
D
Sure
why
I
have
started
to
create
the
repo
for
no
report
that
we
discuss
what
did
create
the
default
governance
as
we
discuss.
So,
if
you
guys
want
to
take
a
look
and
just
make
sure
that
you
like
what
I
did
and
that
would
be
great
I
see
and
do
need
sort
of
gave
it
a
plus
one.
So
that
might
be
what
he
uses.
Is
there
as
well
again,
probably
good
I.
Think
that's
the
main
tsc
related
thing
that
I
did
last
week.
C
Yeah,
so
most
of
my
attention
over
the
past
week
has
been
more
on
technical
items.
A
couple
of
know:
DPSS
pull
requests
that
kind
of
thing,
but
I've
also
been
looking
at
some
of
the
the
inclusivity,
diversity
issues
and
just
kind
of
getting
my
head
more
around
the
concerns
there.
So
that's
me
I'm
not
sure
his
neck.
A
F
F
It's
tough
I'd,
really
like
somebody
who's
going
to
be
there
from
the
technical
side
to
to
take
on
a
little
bit
of
a
leadership
role
there
and
make
sure
that
it
said
it
all
kind
of
comes
together
and
that
the
agenda
give
six,
because,
unlike
the
last
one
I,
don't
think
that
I'll
be
able
to
personally
do
that.
Much
like
on
the
day.
So,
if
you're
interested
in
kind
of
taking
that
on
please
reach
out
to
me
soon,.
F
Yes,
so
the
code
and
learn
and
the
collab
summit,
so
the
codon
learned,
is
more
like
a
hey
everybody.
Let's
learn
how
to
write
code
encore
in
like
four
hours
that
somebody
needs
to
leave
that
and
yeah
the
collab
summit
stuff.
We
could
probably
use
multiple
leaders
in
the
collab
summit
stuff
since
we're
talking
about
so
many
different
issues.
We
could
have
people
take
each
session,
but
yeah
the
immediate
needs
is
for
Amsterdam
will
probably
need
the
same
when
Austin
comes
up,
but
that's
that's
a
ways
out.
G
D
H
A
All
right
thanks
everyone,
this
point
we'll
go
ahead
and
move
on
to
the
agenda.
The
first
one
we
have
is
a
post-mortem
issue,
number
30,
which
is
repositories
to
contribute
collaboratively.
So
there's
a
couple
of
repositories
here
that
are
currently
not
under
the
nodejs
Bourque.
I'm
saying
I'm
not
very
familiar
with
the
split
examples
are
like
NDB,
v8
and
ll
Ned
and
we're
looking
at
moving
them
into
the
org,
and
I
am
usually
not
so
actually.
E
D
I've
created
the
node
report,
repo
I
have
a
pull
request
against
it,
so
I
created
with
just
you
know,
the
basic
read
me:
I
have
a
pull
request
against
it
with
the
base
governance.
That's
why
I
was
just
mentioning
if
you
know
I
ICC,
the
tsc
and
the
post-mortem
working
group
for
comments
on
that
governance.
Once
I
have
one
lgtm,
let's
have
a
few
more
I'll
go
ahead
and
land
that
which
point
I
will
start
contributing
the
code
that
actually
goes
in
there.
D
I
haven't
talked
to
induce
me
yet
about
moving
over
ll
node
I
I
will
follow
up
with
him
on
that
there
hasn't
been
progress
when
I
get
back
on
vacation,
a
week's
like
them
away
next
week,
but
the
week
after
I
think
once
we
get
different
day.
You
know
I
was
looking
at
getting
the
node
report.
One
landed
that
would
give
us
the
base
governance,
which
we're
asking
need
to
put
into
the
yellow
node,
with
a
pull
request
before
we
actually
move
it
over.
H
E
Actually
I'm
gonna
add
a
note
on
the
github
bot
there's
a
discussion
summer
think
it
ended
up
on
the
help
repo.
For
some
reason,
the
github
bought
might
need
to
move
back
out
because
we
need
Travis
access
for
it.
And
people
don't
want
me
to
give
Travis
temporary
access
again
so
that
we
can
set
that
up.
But
that's
probably
four
different
time.
But
that's
like
an
ongoing
org
issue
that
we're
going
to
end
up
having
the
best.
A
A
F
B
F
F
F
H
F
Mean
I'd
like
to
get
robbed
and
put
on
that?
I
I
don't
know
if
I
mean
he's
in
the
role
I
don't
know
if
it's
more
work
for
him
to
basically
be
communicating
with
another
person
to
tell
all
of
this
or
if
he
or
if
it
would
actually
be
easier
to
split
it
up
and
take
some
blood
off
his
plate.
I
think
that
I'd
like
to
know
how
Rob
feels
about
that.
Being
that
he's
been
the
only
person
to
sit
in
the
chair
except.
G
Tonight
I
was
want
to
throw
one
other
thing
in
there
and
that's
I,
don't
think
we
have
an
official
like
CD,
see
chair
and
I've,
always
just
kind
of
thought.
That
was
just
the
way
we
wanted
it
to
be.
But
then,
since
we
have
an
official
tsc
chair,
do
we
need
such
a
thing
for
ctc
and
it
seems
like
it's
kind
of
robbed
now
and
don't
throw
that
out.
There
I
mean.
F
I
I
I
would
like
to.
I
would
like
to
have
see
ittt
share
at
UT
chair
just
so
that
we
can
start
distributing
the
load.
More
I
mean
I
know
that
rich
has
run
some
of
the
meetings
recently,
and
it
would
be
like
awesome
if
you
wanted
to
take
that
on,
because
he
has
the
right,
like
he's
really
on
top
of
stuff,
and
he
runs
the
meetings
really
well
so
I.
You
know
separate
from
this
other
kind
of
by
lopping
and
putting
a
TSE
chair
up.
A
C
C
E
E
F
How
about
this
because
I'd
like
to
have
this
resolved
by
the
next
board
meeting,
so
that
if
we
elect
somebody
different
than
there
in
that
meeting-
and
we
would
probably
just
have
rod,
come
on
as
well
just
to
transfer
off
of
any
work
off
of
him.
But
I
am
we?
We
should
target
soliciting
nominations
by
the
next
TCT
at
tsc
meeting.
So
if
anybody
else
wants
to
run,
we
should
you
know
be
doing
it
by
end
of
next
week.
F
D
A
Yeah
I
think
that
is
a
really
important
question
to
answer.
First,
before
you
really
solicit
nominations
but
kinda
like
Michaels
saying
earlier,
Rogers
was
saying
earlier.
I
really
want
to
solicit
rods
feedback
on
this
because
yeah
it
might
be
that
that
overhead
communication
might
be
so
great
that
it
makes
it
more
difficult
and
I
mean
without
knowing
the
answer
to
that
I.
Don't
feeI
I,
don't
at
least
feel
like.
We
can
really
come
to
an
answer
on
that
right
now.
So.
F
B
F
D
A
C
C
C
I'll,
go
ahead
to
do
right
after
this
call
will
open
the
issue
in
the
CSC
repo,
specifically
focusing
on
whether
we're
going
to
keep
things
together,
keep
the
positions
together
or
separate
them
out.
How
do
we?
How
are
we
going
to
want
to
do
the
nominations
and
self
nominations?
I
mean
it
is
itself
nomination
or
we
nominate
someone
else.
We
do
that
through
the
repo
do.
C
H
A
F
H
A
E
D
Don't
think
it's
it's!
The
question
comes
down
to
the
specific
PR
itself.
It's
the
sort
of
bigger
question
of
is.
Does
that
solve
the
problem?
We
were
trying
to
answer
so
it's
not.
I
don't
think
whether
yeah
I
haven't
seen
any
you
know.
I
addressed
all
the
comments
that
were
in
the
PR
in
terms
of
you
know,
changes
I.
Think
it's
like.
Is
that
what
we
want?
If
the
answer
is
yes,
we
could
just
landed
or
if
it's
we
need
something
different
than
maybe
not
right.
I
mean.
F
I
feel
like
at
this
point
we've
been
kicking
this
back
and
forth.
So
the
prudent
thing
to
do
maybe
to
merge
it,
and
if
people
have
particular
issues
to
take
with
language
here
there
or
don't
think
that
it's
also
said
that
problem
they
can
send
a
new
PR.
We
can
evaluate
it
provement,
but
I
just
don't
want
to
see
things
indefinitely
stalled
out
until
people.
You
know.
H
A
Weird
last
time,
I
looked
at
it,
you
know,
looking
purely
at
the
EP
are
not
at
the
more
meta
conversation
and
you
know,
I
thought
it
looked
pretty
good.
Maybe
we
can
do
some
things,
but
if
we
decide
to
move
forward
with
this
we
can
get
a
couple
of
people
to
it.
You
had
a
couple
of
looks
good
to
me
on
it,
so
it's
not
just
me
and
Wayne
like
us,.
A
H
So
I
kind
of
thought
that
just
the
intent
was
to
kind
of
present
this
to
the
board
is
the
answer
of
what
they
asked
of
what
is
no
core
and
I
feel.
If
we
merge
it,
then
it
makes
it
you
know
like
presented
to
the
public
like
we
have
decided.
This
is
official
and
the
board
hasn't.
Actually
maybe
they
have
a
disagreement
and
they'll
say
they
don't
like
it.
I.
E
Don't
know
I
think
there
was
some
thoughts
and
maybe
like
the
last
meeting
on
getting
it
merged.
So
at
least
we
know
what
we're
like
just
purely
for
us
to
know
what
okay
were
about
this
and
then
we
can
move
forward
with
certain
things
on
our
end,
like
do
even
really
need
the
tsc
supper
from
the
CTC,
etc.
F
Yeah
I
mean
I
feel
like
the
board.
Question
is
going
to
be
there's
a
larger
document
which
is
like
you
know,
the
basically
the
mission
statement
of
the
foundation
and
some
of
the
strategy
stuff
about
the
foundation,
and
that
will
work
on
top
of
this
poor
definition.
And
if
they
take
issue
with
it,
then
they
can
kick
that
down
and
we
can
make
modifications
but
I.
Don't
think
that
we
need
to
hold
it
up
on
waiting
for
board
input
if
they
have.
It
will
definitely
hear
it
later
on,
but.
A
E
H
Wanted
to
bubble
up
some
information,
I
I
tuned
in
to
the
build
working
group
meeting,
and
they
decided
they
wanted
to
try
and
allocate
some
funds
or
some
hosting
of
some
sort,
and
they
were
a
bit
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
do
that
who
to
contact
the
tsc.
The
CTC,
the
board
and
I
think
it
left
off
with
emailing
someone
on
the
board.
Yeah
yoyo.
E
D
D
F
F
F
D
D
F
Them,
okay,
that
that's
definitely
within
our
six
month
budget,
I!
Think
because
if
I
remember
correctly
on
my
head,
it
was
ten
grand
a
year.
So
within
the
six
month
budget
there
would
be
five
thousand
there
and
we're
already
a
month
and
do
it.
So
that's
going
to
be
fine!
It's
just
what
we
do.
2017
budgeting
I'll
need
to
make
sure
that
I
increase
it
a
little
bit.
Yes,.
C
E
D
F
Mean
like
there's
Rob's
doneness
with
it,
but
with
a
couple
services
already,
so
he
knows
the
whole
process
he's
involved,
but
it's
essentially
like
you,
you
send
it
to
I.
Think
it's
accounts,
receivable
I
think
it's
a
are,
but
you
like,
if
we're,
if
it's
an
ongoing
thing,
we'll
want
to
essentially
have
them
like
put
in
their
credit
card
stuff
for
it,
so
we'll
need
to
just
send
it
in
access.
Okay,.
F
D
E
Unfortunately,
I
don't
think
there's
a
good
way
to
answer
that
the
benchmarking
for
an
odious
is
not
in
the
greatest
state
anyways
and
there's
not
a
huge
amount
of
people.
I'm
super
interesting
that
so
it
hasn't
moved
forward
that
much
so
already
been
qing
marking
our
own
speed
to
compare
is
a
little
bit
different,
difficult
microsoft
inseparable.
H
G
H
G
E
I
think
we're
probably
done
then
thanks
everyone
and
we
have
a
list
of
upcoming
meetings.
No
I,
don't
think
so.
Next
meeting
should
be
on
the
twenty-fifth
of
this
month,
although
we
may
do
a
special
meeting
next
week,
thursday,
depending
on
where
we
go
forward
of
things
thanks.
Everyone
for
tuning
in
thanks.