►
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
B
B
Okay,
good
fourteen
went
out
on
Tuesday
super
exciting,
and
you
know
a
number
of
people
on
this
call
were
actively
involved
in
that
release.
A
bunch
of
people
who
were
listening
might
also
have
been
involved,
but
just
in
general,
it's
pretty
exciting
to
have
it
at
the
door.
There
will
be
our
next
big
LTS
release
and
yeah.
That's
about
it.
No.
A
A
If
not
in
terms
of
the
board,
there
is
a
board
meeting
this
week,
so
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
on
the
board
that
people
are
waiting
from
me.
You
know
other
than
some
of
the
ones
like
the
build
stuff
that
there
was
an
update
on
last
week.
If
there
is
something
you
know,
let
me
know
or
if
there's
something
new.
Let
me
know
in
that
front
too,
and
I'll
bring
it
up.
C
A
C
A
A
Is
we
had
a
couple
new
repos
so
for
that
repo
I've
actually
enabled
the
current
version
just
to
try
it
out
and
see
get
a
little
bit
of
experience
and
there's
only
one
or
two
people
who
might
be
landing
things
there
we'll
see,
you
know
what
they
run
into,
but
yeah
so
like
I'm,
if
everybody
was
like,
let's
just
land
that
and
then
only
like
turn
on
the
enforcement
later
on,
that
might
be
okay,
but
I'm
also
like.
If
it's
only
a
few
weeks
out.
You
know
we,
let's
just
wait.
If.
A
A
E
A
E
A
A
Perfect,
okay,
so
I
guess
yeah
just
when
the
issue
was
generated
was
still
there.
Next
one
then
is
processed,
throw
exception
on
an
hundred
and
handled
rejected,
equals
default.
This
is
actually
something
which
we
and
added
on
request
at
the
start
of
the
meeting.
C
C
D
So
there
were
actually
three
proposals
and,
and
and
the
first
one
was
exactly
what
he
said-
to
switch
to
default
to
the
strict
mode,
but
this
TR
is
already
closed,
because
there
was
one
that
and
one
on
the
PR
and
then
an
alternative
was
open
up
to
change
the
current
behavior
of
all
the
three
modes
and
that
existed
in
a
way
that-
and
they
adhere
to
the
current
unhandled
rejections
hook
at
the
moment-
is
completely
independent.
If
you
have
the
hook
in
place
or
not,
the
hook
will
work,
but
the
flag
will
and
have.
D
D
D
D
A
D
A
D
It
the
second
one
suggested
to
change
the
defaults
in
a
way
that
the
unhandled
bijections
hook
is
higher
prioritized
at
the
moment.
The
hook
and
the
flag
is
independently
working
and
from
then
on.
It
would
change
that
if
you
have
the
hook
in
place,
but
you
would
use
strict
mode
that
it
would
not
crash
anymore.
No.
E
D
D
C
A
A
C
C
D
C
C
D
Well,
I,
personally,
the
the
third
one
was
a
suggestion
about
something
similar,
but
about
the
seamy
Street
right,
where
you
would
only
throw
in
case
you
don't
have
the
Pope
in
place.
So
this
is
a
completely
new
mode
and
we
could
add
that
independently.
So
this
mode
could
be
added
as
a
sender
minor.
D
D
C
A
E
D
E
D
Was
discussed
there
as
well
and
at
one
point
was
that
we
would
not
want
to
have
a
de
flag
that
is
now
in
place
to
be
impacted
by
and
handled
rejection.
Yeah
unhealed
rejections,
flag,
sorry
hook,
unhittable
ejections
hook,
because
it
is
somewhat
like
it
was
not
the
best
idea.
Maybe
in
the
first
place
to
add
that
and
instead
it
would
have
been
nice
if
we
would
just
have
been
behaving
similar
to
arrows
otherwise.
But
that's
just
one
part
of
the
opinion
and
there
are
other
people
who
believe
different.
D
D
Correct
wrote
the
duplication
message
and
with
the
non-zero
exit
code
and
that
was
iterated
upon
as
well.
So
after
a
long
discussion,
it
was
agreed
upon
that
s.
Rowing
would
be
probably
the
best
for
the
user
in
the
end,
instead
of
just
exiting
with
a
nonzero
exit
code.
One
of
the
main
reasons
for
dad
is
and
that
just
exiting
with
a
nonzero
exit
code
does
not
provide
a
real
good
debugging
experience
for
the
users
and
they
don't
have
any
clue
where
things
are
coming
from.
Honestly.
D
A
I
think
part
of
the
problem
is,
there
is
I.
I
know,
there's
been
past
suggestions.
We
should
just
remove
the
deprecation
warning,
but
we
couldn't
get
consensus
on
doing
that
either.
So
it's
it's
it's
in
there
partially
for
this
long,
because
there
hasn't
been
consensus
that
it's
that
what
it
says
is
what
we
should
do
or
not
right.
C
A
D
Well,
in
this
case,
the
ideas
that
were
brought
up,
or
at
least
something
that
we
did
not
discuss
as
much
and
like,
for
example,
we
did
discuss
about
the
flag
if
it
should
adhere
to
the
handled,
rejections
or
not
to
the
hook.
Sorry,
and-
and
we
then
decided
okay,
we
want
to
keep
it
completely
separate
because
there
were
so
many
different
opinions,
and
this
was
the
only
thing
that
we
could
agree
upon.
In
the
end.
D
A
D
The
intent
of
the
person
is
clearly
to
change
is
default
to
something
more
straight
and
like
III.
Do
you
have
a
pinion
on
that
as
well,
and
it's
clearly
to
make
it
more
strict,
but
I
also
believe
that
more
people
want
to
have
it
strict
then
the
other
way
around.
But
this
is
just
I
I,
don't
have
any
hard
numbers
where
it
is.
You
know,
so
that's
why
a
survey
would
be
good
to
have
actually
some
facts
and
then
you
let
the
users
decide
what
to
do.
C
C
A
Yeah
I
think
it
all
like
I
agree,
you
know
I'm
not
saying
we
shouldn't
go
through
these
pr's
in
the
end.
You
know,
like
you
said,
if
it's
new
ideas,
that's
great
I,
just
suspect
we're
gonna
bump
up
against
that
fundamental.
You
know.
Is
it
changing
the
default
to
something
that's
gonna,
break
people
or
not.
G
C
So
what
I'd
want
to
suggest
me?
Yeah
I,
definitely
don't
want
to
short-circuit
anything
the
conversation
here,
but
it
definitely
sounds
like
we
just
need
to
sit
iterate
discussing
this
more.
The
the
additional
contact
I'm
Ruben
I
really
appreciate
you
going
through
this
summary
and
explaining
that
lurch
and
others.
It
definitely
some
details
that
I
had
missed
across
different
discussions,
but
I
think
at
this
point
you
just
need
to
stew
on
it
and
then
make
make
a
commitment
that
we're
going
to
decide
on
this
soon.
Maybe
next
week,
I.
D
Agreed
we
have
to
decide
on
it
and
relatively
soon,
I'm,
not
sure
if
it
should
be
next
week.
I'm
out
I
personally
would
still
favor
to
have
a
small
survey
and
then
to
decide
if
it
is
a
picture
in
the
survey
for
a
or
b
and
then
we
should
follow
that.
The
question
is:
how
do
we
write
these
things
in
a
way
that
it
is
neutral
for
all
the
users
and
that
they
still
understand
the
differences?
That's
the
tricky
part.
A
C
Yeah
one
thing
that
might
actually
be
better
than
a
survey
or
at
least
crime
surveys
would
be
actually
writing
a
blog
post
on
it.
Here
are
the
clear,
concise
choices,
clear
options
right
and
then
doing
a
survey
which
of
those
do
you
know
because
I
don't
think
a
survey
by
itself
is
going
to
be
enough
to
capture
the
the
nuances
here.
D
A
D
D
A
A
C
C
I
definitely
appreciate
if
you
do
end
up
doing
the
work
on
the
blog
post,
definitely
get
it
and
I
made.
The
suggestion
is,
you
know,
I
want
to
be
sensitive
to
what
time
you
have
available.
So
I
wasn't
trying
to
say,
hey,
go
off
and
do
that
work,
but
if
you
do
end
up
doing
it,
I
think
it
would
be
valuable.
I
appreciate.
A
A
C
This
is
one
that
I
know
that
I
need
to
go.
Look
at
I
just
have
not
had
the
opportunity
to
do.
I
know
runnings
been
putting
a
ton
of
effort
into
this
and
getting
our
streams,
implementation,
consistence
and
I
and
I'd.
Much
rather
see
us
improve
the
consistency
here
than
not.
This
is
an
area.
That's
always
been
very
fraught
with
danger.
C
H
Here's
the
thing
I
think
this
one's
been
been
pretty
well
reviewed,
I
think
the
main,
if
I'm,
not
mistaken,
I'm,
not
looking
at
the
issue
right
now.
Sorry
but
I
believe.
The
main
issue
is
that
MSC
Dex
bring
light
poses
to
the
way
errors
are
handled,
and
so
this
is
really
about
that
particular
impasse
and
not
about
necessarily
about
you
know
like
I,
think
other
people
might
want
to
review
it
and
have
other
objections
or
not,
but
but
it's
I
think
it
has
enough
reviews.
It
has
enough
approvals.
It
ran
CIT
GM
without
a
problem.
H
H
Yeah
this
isn't
about
like,
like
this,
isn't
about
like
getting
reviews
and
stuff.
It's
it's
it's
about
an
impasse
and
it's
and
it's
an
unusual
impasse,
and
that
it's
it's
you
know
most
of
our
impasses
are
like
a
few
people
on
one
side,
a
few
people
on
the
other
side
and
listens.
This
is
not
that
which
isn't
to
say
that
it's
not
worth
you
know,
looking
at
and
considering.
D
C
H
I
mean
basically,
you
know
you
know.
Conversation
has
run
its
course.
Brian's
been
pretty
clear
that
he,
you
know,
does
not
intend
to.
You
know
you
know
still
stands
and
conversations
been
pretty
extensive
on
it.
You
know,
certainly
given
the
narrow
focus,
certainly
extensive
enough
and
and
yeah
it's
just
a
matter
of
okay.
Are
we
gonna
close
the
PR
or
we're
gonna
land
it?
Despite
the
objection,
those
are
basically
the
only
options,
and
at
this
point
it's
really
the
CSE's
decision
to
make
and.
H
E
H
And
mateus
now
just
indicated
that
he's
a
he
he
needs
time
to
review
and
contemplate,
which
is
one
of
the
actions.
Okay,
I
think
this
I
think
like
this
just
got
added
a
couple
days
ago.
I
think
right,
not
even
it.
No
not
even
24
hours
ago,
so
I
would
say:
let's
just
let
people
now
please
look
at
this
and
please
weigh
in
and
we'll
we'll
leave.
H
Tsu
have
a
label
on
it
and
we
can
review
it
again
next
week,
if
there's
not
enough
input
or
whatever
but
I,
don't
think
we
really
need
to
have
any
complicated
I
mean
this
isn't
a
complicated
issue.
In
my
I
mean
the
the
PRS
has
has
implications
that
are
that
are
large,
but
the
actual
area
that
we're
talking
about,
reviewing
and
and
and
and
either
saying
yeah.
This
is
actually
a
problem
or
not
is
pretty
focused
have
to.
H
I
mean
to
be
fair
to
be
fair.
Sometimes
there
really
isn't
room
for
negotiation.
It's
just
like
you
know.
You
know,
you
know
I
believe
strongly
that
small
Corps
versus,
like
you
know,
or
whatever,
and
and
and
there's
nothing
to
be
done
and
I-
think
that
that's
I
mean
my
now
getting
into
not
framing
the
issue.
But
my
personal
thing,
I
think
I.
Think
that
you
know
that's
that's
the
case
here
and
I.
Think.
H
D
Was
it
originally
that
it
had
a
different
error
handling,
because
at
moment
it
looks
like
it
pretty
much
keeps
missing,
as
it
was
before,
just
a
little
bit
more
aligned
with
streams,
but
originally
it
would
have
emitted
an
error.
I,
don't
see
that
part
anymore,
and
it
does
still
throw
in
a
couple
of
places
pretty
much
everywhere
where
I
did
before.
So,
isn't
it
that
it
almost
keeps
everything
behaving
almost
identical
as
before,
I.
C
C
H
H
Run
up
on
the
hour
and
I
think
that
this
this
one
we're
not
going
to
resolve
today
anyway.
So,
let's
just
I,
move
that
we
defecate
I'll.
Do
the
github
issue
tracker
tell
people
to
review,
leave
an
emoji
send
email
to
TSE.
If
you
want
to
comment
in
the
issue
tracker,
if
you
want
to
let's
pick
it
up
next
week
but
fYI,
it's
totally
there
yeah.
A
A
H
We
may
guess
that
it
be
removed
because
we
missed
the
window,
they
released
it
with
yarn,
and
so
we
probably
if
we
want
to
post-mortem
this
a
little
bit,
we
probably
could
have
chosen
to
act
quicker
I
think
I
might
have
been
one
of
the
people
who's
like
that's,
let's
let
it
conversations
happening.
Let's
let
it
go
for
a
week
but
yeah
the
window
to
do
that,
has
closed
and
so
I
think
the
issue
even
closed.
If
I'm
not
mistaken,.
A
Right,
okay,
okay,
so
let's
move
on
then
nominations
for
TSE
chair.
Just
then
you
know
I
just
on
as
an
FYI
until
that
closes
I
can
still
self
nominate
until
the
April,
30th,
inode,
future
directions
and
the
interest
online
or
in-person
summits.
I
took
an
action
to
try
and
make
some
concrete
suggestions
which
I
haven't
done
so
nothing
to
discuss
this
week.
A
A
You
know
just
this
context:
nodejs
gotta
directors,
you
know
dedicated
director
seat
for
the
first
year,
wasn't
the
intention
that
that
would
go
on
forever
and
so
before
the
next
election
period.
We
need
to.
You
know
that
the
CPC
needs
to
decide
whether
that
will
continue
or
not,
and
this
is
really
on
the
agenda
here
to
get
the
TSEs
and
the
comm
comms.
A
A
B
Want
to
add,
like
one
quick
thing
on
this
CPC
stuff,
so
I
have
not
personally
heard
yet,
but
also
I
could
have
just
been
not
paying
attention
during
the
meeting,
an
explicit
stance
from
the
CPC
and
if
they
have
a
preference
and
if
they
have
candidates
who
are
interested.
So
I
I
wear
a
lot
of
hats
here
so
explicitly
with
my
note,
TSE
hat
on.
If
they
see
if
the
CPC
is
not
making
any
sort
of
request
for
changing
the
status
quo,
I
see
no
reason
for
us
to
push
the
status
quo.
B
Take
off
that
hat
and
put
on
my
CPC
pad
for
a
second,
the
bylaws
explicitly
said
one
year
for
node
and
no
longer
node
specific
afterwards
than
to
be
decided
by
the
CPC.
So
I
think
the
CDC
needs
to
be
consistent
about
this,
and
from
that
perspective,
if
we're
not
interested
in
it,
we
really
should
give
the
CPC
a
heads
up.
A
The
only
discussion
is.
We
need
to
make
a
decision
by
the
right
time
right
and
so
that's
where
I
guess.
If
we
have
strong
feelings
expressing
those
I
think
would
influence
the
outcome.
If
we
don't
have
strong
feelings
and
then
you
know,
we
can
express
that
as
well.
I,
just
not
sure
how
we
get
to
the
to
the
point
where
we,
you
know
how
we,
how
we'd
like
to
cast
it
well.
B
A
B
B
With
that
in
mind,
Michael
then,
like
with
my
note
head
on
I,
feel
like
perfectly
fine
with
that
being
enough
signal
that
if
the
CPC
wants
to
keep
the
seat
for
us,
we're
happy
to
keep
the
seat
and
have
someone
willing
to
do
the
work.
Whether
or
not
would
want
multiple
people
and
to
run
an
election
is
kind
of
secondary
to
that.
But
if
you're
willing
to
do
it
and
have
the
time
that
fills
in
that
and
so
like,
if
there
are
no
objections,
I
think
a
very
reasonable.
B
A
B
Yeah
I
guess
that's
that's
a
good
point.
I
would
say
for
what
it's
worth,
though,
and
not
just
trying
to
pass
the
buck
with,
but
with
Michael
as
you
as
our
director
and
as
the
individual
who's
potentially
offering
to
continue
to
do
the
work.
I
think
it
might
make
sense
for
you
to
open
the
issue.
But
if
your
kind
of
times
Trek
I'm
happy
to.