►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/167
Bryan Hughes - https://github.com/nebrius (TSC)
Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
Rod Vagg - https://github.com/rvagg (TSC)
James Snell - https://github.com/jasnell (TSC)
Josh Gavant - https://github.com/joshgav (observer/Microsoft)
William Kapke - https://github.com/williamkapke (observer)
Mikeal Rogers - https://github.com/mikeal (observer/NF)
Jason Ginchereau - https://github.com/jasongin (observer/Microsoft)
Jenn Turner - https://github.com/renrutnnej (observer/NF)
Tracy Hinds - https://github.com/hackygolucky (observer/NF)
A
November
2016,
so
we're
just
going
to
get
straight
into
it
and
we
review
last
week's
meeting,
so
we
talked
about
consider
following
the
TSE
into
the
CT
seals
of
productive
discussion
and
I
posted
notes.
Yesterday
to
that
issue,
with
my
suggestion
for
a
way
for
we'll
talk
about
that
briefly
again
today,
we
skipped
over
revised
membership
rules
because
James
wasn't
here
and
I
think
we
have
to
do
the
same
this
week
again.
B
A
We
talked
about
in
vm
and
we're
going
to
deal
with
that
straight
up
in
this
meeting.
So
without
further
ado.
Let's
go
into
that
topic,
so
in
vm
and
investigate
moving
into
the
foundation.
What
we
did
was
set
up
a
repository
called
version
management.
I
think
it
was
and
and
there's
been
some
productive
discussion
and
meetings
in
there
with
a
fairly
broad
group.
I
believe,
but
we
have
a
report
from
that
group
now.
A
D
This
is
jason
here,
so
we
met
a
couple
days
ago
office
call
we
had
representatives
from
thank
four
or
five
of
the
various
version
manager
tools,
us
some
other
interested
people.
I
posted
the
notes
in
our
repo,
but
I'll
summarize
for
the
group
here,
so
we
we
are
in
general
agreement
that
we
should
work
together
to
kind
of
define
standards
for
version
management,
which
would
probably
consist
of
requirements
for
have
no
versions
of
hash
and
installed
on
with
extensions
for
the
various
switching
mechanisms
which
are
kind
of
optional.
D
D
A
E
E
I
think
that
if
this
group
of
people
think
that
there
is
like
a
really
positive
strategic
interest
of
having
it
in
the
nose
foundations
and
then
we
can
explore
that,
but
if
not,
if
it
just
kind
of
needs,
a
neutral
home,
for
the
reason
that
you
know
any
package
needs
a
neutral
home,
it
should
probably
just
go
to
the
j
aesthetic
and
we
can
help
make
that
happen.
So
Jordan
that.
E
Mean
it's
a
better
fit
if
it
isn't
receiving
interest
from
that
group,
but
I
think
that
if
it's
just
a
general
tool
for
new
developers
and
it
needs
a
home,
it
would
probably
go
into
the
dais
clinicians
and
I
mean
the
dais
foundation.
I
think
it's
probably
pretty
open
about.
You
know
projects
that
are
positive
to
the
ecosystem,
even
if
they're
in
other
languages
are
probably
fine,
I
think.
A
I
think
what
we
just,
what
we
need
is
simply
this
day,
a
proposal
from
moving
forward
and
I.
You
know
jordans
in
that
group,
so
I
trust
that
he'll
be
pursuing
the
interests
of
nvm.
So
if
we
hear
back,
if
we
hear
back
a
case
for
moving
the
nvm
into
the
foundation-
and
it's
a
case
that
involves
a
that
is
wrapped
up
in
a
strategic
future,
around
version
management,
then
I
think
that
we're
much
more
likely
to
be
able
to
consider
it.
It's
just
simply
that
when
we're
missing
that
case,
what
is
this?
A
What
is
this
part
of
that
is
you
know
it's
not
just
an
isolated.
Let's
bring
this
one
thing
in,
but
it's
part
of
a
more
strategic
direction
around
that
whole
area.
That
includes
an
ecosystem.
So,
if
that,
if
that
case
can
be
made,
I
think
I
don't
see
it
being
hard
to
do
it's
just
that
case
does
need
to
remain
so
great.
D
I
think
how
it
was
how
it's
going
to
proceed
at
this
point
is
we
work
on
kind
of
defining
the
requirements
or
standards
for
version
management
and
then
perhaps
based
on
what
we,
what
we
settle
on
there?
We
can
think
about
whether
a
single
solution
might
meet
everybody's
requirements
or
whether
it
might
be
more
appropriate
to
allow
different
tool
to
innovate
or
focus
on
more
specific
scenarios
for
platforms.
F
A
F
That
might
be
useful
to
know
you
know,
especially
if
here's
a
couple
possibilities
that
we
could
do
here.
We
could
decide
that
you
know
nvm
becomes
obsolete
or
maybe
the
basis
of
some
new
tool.
That's
worked
on.
You
know,
that's
one
possibility,
in
which
case
you
know
having
a
medium
itself
in
a
foundation,
isn't
very
useful,
but
you
know
there
are
other
scenarios
where
nvm
may
need
to
be
in
a
foundation.
I'm
still
like
thinking
about
like
with
the
Jays
foundation.
F
Specifically,
you
know
if
they
need
to
get
in
on
foundation
soon,
because
you
know
say
the
project
is,
you
know
struggling
with
not
being
a
found
in
a
foundation
or
something,
but
then
maybe
that
makes
sense
as
a
temporary
measure.
I
just
yeah
it'd
be
nice
to
know.
If
there
was,
you
know
a
constraint
that
way,
like
you
know,
there's
a
pressure
to
get
them
into
the
foundation.
Soon
or
not.
E
Think
a
good
thing
to
note
here
too,
is
it:
the
jas
foundation
has
a
right
to
leave
baked
into
their
bylaws.
So
if
a
project
decides
that
it
wants
to
leave
that
foundation
for
another
one,
they
can
so
yeah.
If
you
needed
a
temporary
stopgap
and
it
wouldn't
necessarily
mean
that
it
could
never
come
in
the
middle
foundation
def.
Why.
B
I'm
going
to
mention
one
thing
at
Jason
kind
of
focused
on
the
point:
how
we
would
how
we
will
move
forward
with
the
Virgin
management
discussion
and
rod
you
kind
of
brought
up
and
Michael
to
the
the
underlying
assumption
there,
which
is
that
we
would
want
version
management
in
core
I
wrote
I,
for
there
is
a
document
that
initial
proposal
that
we
shared
a
couple
weeks
ago
and
it
I
don't
even
mention
a
Jason.
But
is
there
a
was
there
consensus
that
the
reasons
that
are
given
there?
B
D
B
The
tsc
I
think
the
tsc
is
kind
of
looking
for
guidance
from
you.
Folks
and
I
wrote
this
up,
because
I
think
this
is
what
we
think
we're
talking
with
you
and
talk
and
talk
to
Jordan
and
I
just
want
to
verify
that
that's
true,
and
if
that
is
then
that
that
might
help
answer
rod
and
Michael's
concerns,
and
then
we
know
that
okay
version
management
as
a
as
a
domain
does
belong
under
the
foundation.
B
We
know
that
the
next
step
is
to
work
on
the
conventions
and
the
api's
and
stuff
said
that
you
guys
are
working
on
now.
How
and
then
the
only
question
that
will
remain
is
in
a
month
or
two
when
we
do
have
those
conventions,
whether
we
bring
in
a
particular
implementation
or
not
so
then
yeah
so
I,
guess
I'm.
Looking
for
that,
do
we
have
consensus
on
the
foundation
reasoning,
and
maybe
we
need
to
just
verify
that
with
the
group
I.
A
A
Yeah
look
I
think
all
we
need
really
is
to
know
that
there
is
that
this
group
is
pursuing
this
these
questions
and
that
there
is
enough
interest
in
activity
there
to
trust
that
it's
going
to
pursue
them
with
a
very
strategic
head
and
then
and
then
it's
up
to
the
TSE,
to
really
empower
that
group
to
do
that
and
to
start
making
that
those
cases
around
core.
So
it's
not
up
to
the
tsc
to
agree
or
disagree
where
the
version
management
belongs
in
node
core.
A
That's
going
to
be
a
case
for
this
group
to
make
to
the
CTC
so
that
the
TSE
is
really
the
domain
of
our
decision.
Making.
Here
is
simply
what
what
groups
do
we
empower
and
what
projects
do
we
bring
in?
So
that's
really
I
think
so
empowering
this
group
is,
it
seems
like
it's.
A
positive
thing
to
you
know
maybe
and
he's
become
working
group,
and
then
you
know
knowing
that
it
has
this
strategic
direction
that
is
pursuing
I.
A
Think
if
that
group
were
to
come
back
and
say,
look,
we
think
that
the
other
nvm
should
come
in
and
it
should
come
in
under
these
conditions
and
whatever
I
think
that
would
be
really
easy
to
do
once
once
the
tsc
knew
that
this
domain
was
was
being
taken
care
of,
or
at
least
looked
at
by
a
separate
group,
but
the
fact
that
until
now
it's
been
up
to
the
tsc
to
think
about
that,
so
the
proposal
for
nvm
has
come
in.
Tsc
has
had
to
think
about
this
whole
thing
from
a
strategic
reserve
perspective.
A
That's
too
hard!
So
knowing
that
there's
another
group
that
he's
concerned
about
that
and
and
he's
actually
making
good
progress
if
that
case
would
be
made
about
bringing
actually
bringing
nvm
in
I,
think
it'd
be
much
easier
for
the
TSE.
You
just
sign
off
of
that
and
say:
okay!
Well,
if
you
think
that's
right,
the
way
to
go
and
it's
going
to
be
looked
after
them
then
go
for
it.
E
Yeah
I
mean
it
sounds
like
the
group
kind
of
wants
a
little
bit
of
like
a
blessing
or
kind
of
a
go
forward
from
the
TSE
and
I'll
just
say
this,
like
in
all
of
our
discussions
about
this.
Nobody
has
really
objected
to
the
idea
that
this
is
very
important
for
users
that
almost
all
of
our
users
use
something
like
this
in
order
to
manage
their
version.
This
is
an
important
of
topic
for
the
foundation
to
take
on
I.
Don't
think
that
anybody's
really
objected
to
that
principle.
G
I
with
all
the
succession
going
on
I
think
it'd
be
pertinent
to
at
least
mention
it
to
the
board.
The
wording
and
number
issue
144
that
we'll
talk
about
here
in
a
bit
says
that
any
new
things
will
be
run
by
the
board,
and
maybe
this
isn't
happening
yet
or
maybe
will
happen.
But
you
know
it's
all
about
keeping
him
in
the
loop
and
knows
maybe
the
board
would
be
like
yeah
we,
you
know
we
don't
want
to
put
resources
into
that,
like
whatever
they
might
say.
I.
A
E
E
Mean
why
and
precious
handled
by
the
working
group
so
I
mean
so
I
mean
the
people
that
run
that
group
we're
going
to
have
to
you
know,
drive
the
decision
making
and
all
of
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
there's
not
a
ton
that
we
can
do
other
than
just
kind
of
support.
You
give
advice,
you
know
a
baseline
of
resources
and
stuff
like
that.
We
can't
really
like
we.
Actually,
we
don't
want
to
step
in
and
make
decisions
for
another
group,
because
that
group
is
empowered
to
be
the
experts
on
that
particular
area.
Yeah.
A
If
that's
the
way
to
go
and
and
I
think
that
as
long
as
he's
in
that
discussion,
then
the
things
that
come
up
from
that
group
will
be
taken
seriously
by
the
tsc
and
if
moving
in
vm
is
urgent,
then
he
just
needs
to
let
us
know
and
we'll
see
if
we,
if
that
can
be
factored
in.
But
you
know
the
more
that
comes
from
that
group
to
us
better
so
that
we
don't
have
to
be
the
experts.
So.
A
E
Yeah
I
mean
I
would
probably
just
say
that
that
if
you
can
be
closed,
if
that
working
group
thinks
that
it
can
be
closed,
radek
it's,
it
has
a
lot
of
important
context
in
it.
If
that
group
type
to
kick
it
back
to
the
tsc
and
say
you
know
what
we're
not
going
to
do
much
over
here
and
like
you
should
make
such
team
outside
of
that.
But
that
context
isn't
all
that
important
if
you're,
you
know
taking
on
all
this
work
in
another
working
group
and
moving
forward
from
there,
ok.
G
A
G
A
A
D
C
G
E
F
A
A
So
the
next
one
is
a
number
146
which
is
considered
folding.
The
tsc
and
the
CTC
I
posted
a
long
follow
up
there
that
it
was
only
yesterday,
so
I'm
not
surprised
as
new
responses
to
that
so
far,
but
I
so
I
summed
up
a
lot
of
what
we
discussed.
Last
week,
we
came
to
some
really
good
conclusions.
Last
week,
I
thought
so
I've
asked
for
anyone
that
has
outstanding
concerns
here
that
actually
had
can
actually
clarify
what
the
problem
is.
That
would
be
trying
to
be
solved
by
merging
the
two
groups.
A
So
without
a
clear
problem
statement
we
can't
move
forward.
That's
that's
pretty
much.
What
we've
decided
here
so
we're
still
open
to
having
that
problem
statement.
I
posted
about
a
summary
of
the
status
quo
and
how
we
got
here
a
bit
of
the
history
and
also
how
we're
working
at
the
moment,
how
we're
a
little
bit
stalled
on
membership
in
particular,
and
then
I
proposed
the
way
forward
and
I'll
just
quickly
summarize
that
so
or
moving
forward.
A
Our
first
of
all
finish
up,
defining
note,
call
which
is
issue
number
144
and
there's
as
William
said
yesterday.
That
I
should
finish
it
up,
but
would
have
been
good
to
have
that
done
for
this
meeting,
but
I'll
try
and
get
it
done
before
no
interactive
so
that
we
can
present
to
the
board.
So
I
have
to
do
that.
I,
synchronously
and
with
we've
done
most
of
the
work
there
anyway.
A
So
it's
just
a
matter
of
taking
care
of
the
nits
and
and
and
reframing
it
for
the
readme,
and
once
we've
solved
that,
then
we
can.
We
can
look
at
how
we
should
adjust
out
the
Hulk
charter
and
the
our
governing
rules
so
that
we
remove
the
whole
concept
of
the
umbrella
program
thing
and
and
make
it
more
clear.
A
What's
going
on
and
I've
put
in
some
items
that
we
should
clarify
within
that,
and
one
is
that
the
assertion
that
we
can
trouble
to
that
last
week
that
the
the
TSE
exists
to
serve
the
CTC
and
the
other
top-level
groups
under
it,
just
as
the
board
exists
to
serve
the
technical
group,
so
make
it
very
clear
that
the
TSE
is
not
the
peak
group.
It
just
happens
to
be
the
you
know,
the
top
of
the
reporting
chain.
A
It
exists
to
serve
the
activity
that
happens
elsewhere,
that
the
tsc
exists
to
facilitate
multiple
projects
that
don't
have
clear
overlap.
So
that's
why
there
might
be
multiple
top-level
groups
under
the
CTC,
but
the
focus
is
on
load
core.
You
know
the
TSS
responsibilities
are
purely
administrative
and
don't
extend
to
technical
decision
decisions
within
note
core
or
the
other
technical
groups
that
exist.
The
TS
sees
administrative
in
Venice.
Trated
responsibilities
exists
as
a
function
of
serving
the
CGC
I
saw
the
top-level
groups
I
just
wanted
to
I.
A
Don't
know
how
you
say
that
in
formal
language,
but
basically
the
the
TSE
is
not
self-serving.
It
exists
to
serve
the
other
groups
and
its
administrative
stuff
is
not
you
know,
it
doesn't
exist,
perpetuate
its
own
existence
and
then
the
third
step
beyond
that,
and
once
we
come
up
with
some
new
governing
rules,
is
to
figure
out
membership
rules.
So
we
can
move
forward
with
that,
and
that
would
be
empowering
people
who
who
want
to
work
on
this
stuff,
but
don't
necessarily
wanna
get
heavily
involved
in
technical
work.
A
So
how
do
we
raise
them
up
and
and
make
them
visible
and
bring
them
onto
the
tsc
if
they're
not
coming
up
through
that
collaborator
pathway
in
node
call
and
then
figure
out
provide
how
we
can
connect
it
with
the
CTC
to
solve
some
of
the
accountability
and
alignment
concerns.
So
there's
been
a
bunch
of
ideas
and
really
floated
about
how
we
can
make
membership
between
those
two
groups
a
little
more
overlapping.
A
So
that's
my
proposal
for
moving
forward.
I
suspect
the
biggest
part
of
that
is
that
new
governing
rules
which
on
which
could
get
stalled
so
I.
My
fear
is
that
we
would,
if
we
would
end
up
deferring
the
membership
stuff
for
too
long.
So
we
might
want
to
think
about
how
we
can
combine
those
two
steps
into
one
and
just
get
the
membership
stuff
figured
out
and
as
AP,
so
that
we
don't
have
this
awkward
situation
we
have
now,
and
so
that's
a
that
was
my
post.
A
Well,
they
they.
This
is
reflecting
the
consensus
that
we
were
having
last
week
about
this
issue.
Basically,
the
consensus
was
regard
to
decision
making
on
the
issue
was
simply
that
we
don't
believe
the
case
has
been
made
here.
Ford
actually
doing
any
taking
any
action,
and
we
would
be.
It
would
be
irresponsible
life
of
us
to
take
action
without
having
a
clear
problem
statement
so
in
in
with
a
lack
of
that.
We
can't
move
forward
so
we'd
like
anyone
that
can
make
that
case
to
please
make
it.
G
F
A
A
Well,
Google
Docs
has
got
some
weird
new
feature
about
action,
items
and
suggested
action
item.
Do
you
want
to
assign
this
to
you?
Okay,
so
the
next
one
is
the
defining
node
core
issue
number
144
again,
there's
been
no
movement
on
that,
except
for
suggestion
that
we
get
that
tied
up
before
note
interactive
so
that
we
can
present
that
to
the
board.
A
So
that
would
mean
dealing
with
that
asynchronously
and
since
we
won't
have
a
meeting
before
then
so,
I
guess
I'll
try
and
get
work
on
that
today
and
tomorrow,
oh
I've
got
a
bunch
on
my
plate,
but
I'll
try
and
prioritize
that
and
pinging
everyone
for
moving
forward
and
get
it
in
front
of
the
board
and
get
it
off
our
plate.
How
does
that
sound.
F
It
sounds
great
that
would
be
awesome
if
we
could
get
this
in
place
before
known
interactive
and
last
time
I.
It's
been
a
while,
since
I
looked
at
that
PR,
but
last
time
I
looked
at
it,
it
was
you
know,
there's
some
good
comments
in
there,
but
I
think
overall
it
look
like
it
was
pretty
solid
and
pretty
clothes.
F
A
A
A
I
A
I
J
A
James,
if
you
think
it's
not
that
big
a
deal
not
that
much
of
a
change,
then
maybe
we
can
vote
on
it
in
in
the
issue.
If
you
want
to
try
and
do
that
or
if
it's
not
if
it's
not
that
important
than
you
can,
maybe
if
you
want,
if
you
want
to
come
to
a
vote,
how
about
you
set
a
timeline
for
that?
So
if
you,
if
you
want
to
be
voted
on
here
at
a
meeting,
then
let's
do
that.
B
G
A
H
E
A
E
Yeah,
you
know
it
what
please
you
know
what
we
could
probably
do
with
some
more
informal
discussion
among
the
tsc
and
people
just
to
work
some
stuff
out,
so
maybe
a
dinner
on
Thursday
or
something
because
Thursday's
a
normal
day
anyway,
and
that's
the
collab
summit
stuff.
So
we
don't
have
any
meals
planned
yet
by
the
conference
for
dinner
at
least.
I
E
F
Can
get
behind
that?
Something
else
we
might
consider
doing
is
extending
an
invitation
to
any
of
the
CTC
members.
You
want
to
join
just
you
know,
kind
of
see
to
see
what
the
tsc
meetings
are
like,
but
yeah
what
dinner
also
is
sort
of
that
the
extra
little
carrot
so
they're,
not
just
sitting
through
a
boring
meeting.
A
A
A
A
G
A
A
Think
this
that
the
boring
stuff
we're
going
to
have
to
deal
with
asynchronously
anyway,
so
the
we've
moved
the
sea
to
sea
tac
combining
thing
off
the
agenda.
Nvm
thing:
we've
pushed
back
to
that
group,
the
Charter
rules.
We've
said
we
will
do
that
asynchronously
and
it's
not
that
vital
anyway.
The
node
defining
note
core
thing.
We
need
to
do
before
the
board
the
board
meeting.
So
we
really
don't
have
that
much
stuff
to
deal
with
any
way.
It
is
urgent,
so
I
think
maybe
we
just
skip
the
meeting
and
have
a
an
informal
dinner.
E
G
I
B
G
E
G
J
E
G
H
A
H
The
proposal
for
inclusivity
working
group
that
I
worked
on
us
trying
to
give
them
some
time
for
input
and
then
I'm
going
to
be
introducing
it
back
to
the
tsc
and
that
deadline
should
be
november.
27Th,
so
watch
for
that
and
then
also
in
case
people
haven't
been
paying
attention
that
the
collaborator
summit,
as
well
as
the
code
and
learn
issues,
are
pretty
hashed
out
right
now,
but
we're
definitely
looking
for
more
of
the
working
groups
to
give
input
on
if
they
want
to
have
meetings
specific
to
their
working
group.