►
From YouTube: 2021-10-21-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).
A
Before
we
get
started.
Does
anybody
have
the
announcements
they'd
like
to
share
17.0.1.
A
C
Yeah
sure
so
there
was
a
16
release
yesterday
and
that
was
really
just
to
to
tidy
up
because
we
planned
a
release
the
week
before.
But
then
we
had
the
security
releases
so
that
release
didn't
happen
and
we
ended
up
with
a
bunch
of
commits
that
weren't
released,
so
those
have
been
released
now,
and
that
was
the
intended
to
be
the
last
current
release
of
note
16.
So
the
next
release
of
note
16
is
going
to
be
on
tuesday.
C
That
will
be
the
lts
transition,
so
node
16
will
become
an
lts
release
by
tradition.
We
don't
normally
put
anything
else
into
the
lts
transition
releases,
so
that
will
just
effectively
be
a
a
release
with
the
code
name
added
and
the
lts
bit
set
in
the
process
release
structure.
So
it
should
be
a
very
sort
of
light
release.
But
from
from
that
release,
note
16
will
be
lts.
C
That
just
means
that
we're
a
bit
more
careful
about
what
goes
in
so
changes
to
master
will
still
end
up
in
node
16,
while
it's
in
active
maintenance
as
they're
active
lts,
but
they
won't
go
in
immediately.
So
we
will
normally
want
to
see
changes
that
land
and
master
go
into
a
current
release,
which
is
down
node
17
before
we
pull
it
into
node
16
lts
after
next
week,.
B
I
believe
our
governance
document
says
that
new
new
collaborator
nominations
are
supposed
to
be
announced,
so
I'm
going
to
announce
that
voltrex
master
is
their
github
handle.
I
I
will
be
has
been
nominated
and
passed
the
nomination
to
be
a
collaborator,
and
I
will
be
on
boarding
them
friday
morning,
pacific
time
friday
evening.
B
You
know
europe
and
time
and
and
points
east
of
there
until
you
hit
the
international
date
line,
I
suppose
and
yeah.
So
that's
that's
all
there
is
to
that.
So
congratulations
and
all
that
stuff
great
to
hear.
A
B
There's
I
believe,
you're
correct,
that
there
was
no
cpc
meeting
and
there
you
know
this
was
even
if
it
was.
This
was
going
to
be
the
work.
You
know
we
do
the
alternating
week
thing
where
there's
the
meeting
and
then
there's
the
working
meeting
kind
of
thing.
This
was
going
to
be
a
working
meeting.
There
wouldn't
be
very
much
to
announce,
probably
anyway,
but
nothing
this
week,
hopefully
next
week,
I'll
I'll.
Let
you
know
then.
A
A
Richard
actually
did
the
work
to
get
coverity
working
again,
and
you
know
we
were
having
a
discussion
of
like
well.
How
should
we
give
people
access?
Who
should
be
able
to
have
access
to
the
coverity
data?
A
So
I
wrote
up
this
pr
just
to
say
this
is
my
suggestion,
which
is
basically
any
collaborator
who
wants
to
have
access
to
the
data
can
have
access
to
it,
along
with
my
suggestion
for
like
how
they
request
it
through
the
build
working
group-
and
I
put
it
on
the
agenda
here-
just
to
make
sure
that
the
tsc
didn't
have
any
concerns
with
us,
sharing
that
data
fairly
broadly
like
it's
to
the
collabor
collaborator
base.
A
C
I
guess
the
only
thing
I
would
add
is
at
the
moment
the
administrators
of
the
coverity
project
are
billed
working
group
members
and
that's
really
been
historic,
and
it's
mainly
because,
in
order
to
run
the
coverity
scan
in
the
ci,
you
need
to
be
an
administrator
to
be
able
to
get
hold
of
the
download
to
install
onto
the
actual
ci
machines.
C
But
I'm
I'm
open
to
adding
more
administrators
if
there's
some
structure
around
who
has
access
to
what
and
not
gates
membership
of
coverity
on
the
build
working
group,
because
that
is
quite
a
small
number
of
people.
But
as
far
as
the
pr
is
concerned,
I
haven't
approved
it
yet,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
representation
of
where
we
currently
stand.
But
it
doesn't,
you
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be
that
way.
We
know
we
can
potentially
open
up.
C
A
C
A
C
A
That's
four:
zero,
four,
six
four!
So
this
meta
move
one
or
more
collaborates
to
emeritus.
B
Yeah,
so
so
our
governance
process
does
not
permit
a
collaborator
to
be
moved
to
emeritus
unless
they,
unless
one
of
two
things
happens,
one
is
that
they
ask
for
it
or
you
know,
announce
it,
and
the
other
is
that
the
tsc
takes
an
action
to
do
it.
So
this
pr,
which
I'm
going
to
put
for
convenience
of
the
two
people
on
here,
having
approved
it,
putting
the
chat
there
is
to
move
one
inactive
collaborator
to
emeritus.
B
They
haven't
responded
and
to
request
to
either
say
yes
or
no,
and
so,
while
we
probably
technically
can
land
it,
as
is,
I
think
it
would
be
much
more
bulletproof
to
have
50
plus
one
of
the
tsc
approving
it.
So
if
we
you
know
so
that
like
if
we
want
to
consider
it
a
vote,
it
passes
so
so,
given
that
we
right
now
have
one
two,
three,
four:
five,
six
seven
eight
approvals,
so
five
more
no
four,
more
four
more
would
be
required
to
have
this
passed.
B
So
if
tsc
folks
could
please
review
and
approve
if
they
believe
it
approval,
that
would
be
awesome.
That's
all
thanks!
B
Okay,
so
it's.
B
A
So
the
next
one
is
doc
document
considerations
for
inclusion
core,
that's
four:
zero!
Three,
three!
Eight!
I
think
that's
one
that
you
were
also
stick
handling
through
right.
B
Yeah,
I
think
it's
landable
at
this
point,
but
I
wanted
to
just
have
it
at
a
meeting
one
last
time,
just
in
case
somebody
thinks
it
should
stay
open
a
little
longer,
so
they
can
look
at
it
about
it
or
anything
like
that.
It
does
only
have
three
approvals,
which
is
less
than
I
was
hoping
I'll
paste
this
one
into
the
there
as
well.
B
This
is
kind
of
trying
to
help
that
long
that
that
you
know
this
is
like
a
first
baby
step
on
the
way
to
resolving
that
long,
long,
open
to
be
or
not
to
be
in
core
conversation
around
specifically
modules,
although
michael
you
have,
you
want
to
think
of
it
more
as
features,
perhaps
which
is
great
by
me,
but
the
purpose
of
the
the
initial
purpose
was
to
discuss
exactly
how
to
handle
like
mod
modules
and
dependencies,
and
so
so
that's
what
this
is
all
about.
B
Just
basically
tries
to
document
pros
and
cons
and
doesn't
really
take
much
of
a
position
on
anything
because
we're
having
such
a
problem
arriving
at
conclusions
and
the
initial
thing
that
robert
asked
for
when
he
opened
the
issue
that
he
opened.
The
to
be
or
not
to
be
in
core
issue
was
that
perhaps
we
can
you
know
document
the
considerations
we
makes
that
we
have
to
go
around
in
circles
reiterating
them
over
and
over
again.
Even
if
we
don't
necessarily
all
agree
on
x
is
more
important
than
y.
B
We
can
at
least
agree
that
x
and
y
both
need
to
be
considered.
So
that's
what
this
does.
I
hope
we
can
land
it,
but
you
know,
if
not,
please
say
something.
A
Yeah,
okay,
so
there's
nothing
more
on
that
one.
The
next
one
is
the
nominating
voter
x
masters
collaborator,
which
I
think
we've
already
covered
the
announcements,
nothing
to
talk
about
on
that
one.
The
next
one
is
add
initial
list
of
technical
priorities:
four
zero,
two
three
five,
this
this
is
basically
on
the
agenda.
Again,
I
think
a
little
bit
like
the
inclusion
in
core.
A
A
You
know,
I
think
it's
kind
of
it's
important,
that
we've
agreed
on
what
we
think
is
technical
priorities,
so
just
be
nice
to
have
a
little
bit
more
of
a
reflection
in
that
oops,
and
I
did
it
just
to
rich.
Instead
of
everybody,.
B
So
I
I
admit
that
I
have
not
been
following
this
one
closely,
so
I
apologize
if
I'm
asking
a
question,
it's
already
been
answered,
but
I
mean
you
know.
Traditionally
we
have
not
had
a
road
map
and
this
kind
of
feels
a
bit
road
mappy,
which
is
not
necessarily
a
bad
thing.
You
know,
like
maybe
you
know.
A
B
Small,
you
can,
you
know,
maybe
we've
outgrown
not
having
a
roadmap,
but
then
I
guess
the
next
question
is,
is
you
know
like
who
decide
who
decides?
Is
this
like?
Something
is
the
idea
that
this
is
something
all
the
collaborators
have
decided,
or
is
this
a
tsc
stamp
of
approval?
You
want
on
this
or
not
sure.
C
A
B
A
That
in
because
I
I
think
that's
important
and
that's
kind
of
you
know,
I
think
it's
you
know
the
tsc
should
be
on
board
to
say
we
do
think
this
is
important.
These
are
things
we
we
should
support
as
opposed
to.
No,
we
don't
think
this
is
important.
Right,
like
the
goal
is
to
to
you
know,
give
highlight
the
things
that
we
think
are
necessary
for
us
to
be
successful,
and
you
know
we
we
brought
together
people
who
are
interested.
A
Having
that
discussion,
we
had
like
a
mini
summit
a
little
while
back
where
we
had
a
little
bit
broader.
This
was
the
list
we
came
out
with,
and
you
know-
hopefully
I
don't
know
if,
like
this
is
one
potentially,
that
is
worth
an
app
mentioned
to
the
whole
collaborator
base
to
make
sure
people
have
seen
it.
A
I
haven't
done
that
because
I
know
we
don't
want
to
do
that
a
lot,
but
that
was
one
thought
I
had
you
know,
but
this
was
the
things
that
we
came
together
and
we
said
yeah
for
us
to
be
successful,
for
you
know
going
forward.
We
need
to
come
up
with
some.
We
need
to
take
these
into
account
some
of
them.
We
actually
already
do
a
good
job.
A
So
if
you
look
at
like
up-to-date
javascript
run,
you
know
language
features,
as
I
mentioned,
michael's
does
a
great
job
of
keeping
us
up
to
date
on
a
recent
v8.
So
we
we
get
that
and
we
can
basically
say
yeah
check
we're
covering
that
we're
good
some
of
the
other
ones
like
good
types.
You
know,
I
think
it's
that
everybody
agrees,
that
that's
something
we
it's
important,
that
we
cover
whether
we
need
to
do
anything
or
not.
A
Is
another
question
like
it
could
be
that
we
look
at
that
and
say
well
that
the
types
for
node
are
working
perfectly.
The
way
they're
maintained
is
great,
but
it's
really
to
say
to
acknowledge
that
it's
important
enough
that
we
should
look
at
that
and
say
yeah,
it's
perfect
or
maybe
there's
something
the
project
can
do
to
improve
that
and
that's
sort
of
like
in
each
one
of
those
we
would.
A
Okay,
thanks
I'm
taking
a
look
at
it
right
now:
okay,
so
that's
yeah,
that's
kind
of
where
that's
coming.
So
I
don't
know
at
people's
thoughts
on
the
app
mentions
to
collaborators
is
that
did
we
have
mentioned
tsc
on
it?
Yet
it's
been
on
the
agenda
for
a
couple
weeks.
I
don't
think
I
did
the
app
mentioned,
but
I
have
mentioned
it
in
the
meetings.
B
A
B
B
A
Okay,
we'll
do
that
thanks,
discuss.
A
Okay,
so
rename
the
default
branch
from
master
to
main
we
still
have
about,
I
think
five
or
six
repositories
to
rename,
and
I
think
we've
got
sort
of
people
who
are
volunteering
or
tagged.
So
it's
just
a
matter
of
you
know
waiting
until
that
happens.
We
did.
I
did
you
know
the
last
time
I
mentioned
that
the
rename
of
readable
stream
did
cause
somebody
using
quite
an
old
set
of
libraries,
some
some
issue.
A
It
did
uncover
one
redirect
that
github
wasn't
redirecting
so
they've
redirected
that
I'm
not
sure
it's
completely
resolved
the
issue,
but
just
as
a
heads
up
that
you
know
there
is,
we
did
run
into
that
one
issue,
but
otherwise
I
don't
think
there's
anything
to
to
talk
about
this
week.
Unless
somebody
else
has
one.
A
A
There
is
migration
of
core
modules
to
primordials,
so
that
one's
three
zero
six
nine
seven.
I
believe
I
saw
that
girish
had
opened
the
issue
that
we
talked
about
last
week
to
discuss
sort
of
not
not
cue,
the
to
not
do
the
vote
yet,
but
to
basically
start
to
get
the
vote.
That
would
be
filled
in
in
terms
of
what
the
vote
would
look
like.
Yeah.
A
B
A
A
A
Okay!
Well
thanks
for
everybody's
time,
thanks
for
anybody,
who's
watching
and
we'll
hope
to
see
you
in
github
and
next
week,.