►
Description
A
A
C
A
C
A
D
Yeah,
I
think
it's
around
that
you
know
we
have
very
good
representation
from
you
know:
companies
in
the
tsc
ctc
in
terms
of
people
who
are
working
with
note
no
to
sell
products
or
to
support
customers,
but
you
know
in
discussion
with
one
potato
company
that
actually
runs
in
production.
It
didn't
seem
like
there's
a
good
representation
of
the
companies
that
are
run.
D
You
know
how
we
think
nodes
should
evolve
in
the
right
direction
to
go,
and
so,
if
the
issue
is
around,
you
know
how
do
we
get
more
of
that
input
and
I
guess
no
backing
up
after
some
of
the
discussion
it's
about
well,
do
we
think
there's
an
issue
or
not
there?
If
we
already
think
we
have
enough
input
than
hey
we're
done
this.
If
we
think
this
no,
we
could
use
more
coverage
in
that
area
than
you
can.
We
come
up
with
ways
of
improving
that.
A
A
Getting
any
good
representative
slice
of
that
is
going
to
be
difficult,
doesn't
matter
what
route
you
take
and
so
I
maintain
that
the
best
path
that
we
know
we
have
so
far
for
doing.
That
is
the
governance
model
we
have
where
its
node
is
important
enough
to
you
and
whether
that's
using
a
production
or
as
a
service
company
or
whatever.
Then
you
can
invest
in
load
by
contributing
resources
to
core
and
the
companies
that
do
that
get
empowered
or
the
individuals
companies
invest
through
getting
powered
through
the
government's
model
to
help
guide
mode.
A
So
we
see
that
already
with
existing
companies
that
are
using
know
like
PayPal,
for
example,
paypal
of
not
only
invested
in
with
platinum,
see
on
the
foundation,
but
they
are
paying
for
few
doors
time.
They
also
individuals
from
that
from
paypal,
come
mean
occasionally
and
contribute
to
parts
of
working
groups
and
activity
in
core
they
engage
and
they
are
Howard
and
other
companies
are
do
that
as
well.
A
We
have
other
members
of
the
collaborating
with
in
the
CTC
people
who
are
paid
for
by
companies,
and
we
also
have
service
provider
companies
that
do
that
as
well.
So
we
have
no
exhaust
being
prime
example
of
that.
We
are
well
connected
with
some
large
companies
that
deploy
note
in
production
and
our
concerns
for
Cora
heavily
driven
by
that
particularly
LTS
working
good
that
comes
from
the
knowledge
and
understanding
and
sometimes
direct
feedback.
We
get
from
those
companies.
A
So
our
our
existences
bay
as
a
company
is
partly
depended
on
by
these
companies
and
it's
in
our
interest
to
serve
those
companies
and
to
provide
that
into
core.
So
it
I
know
that
it's
not
perfect.
I
know
that
it's
not
it's
not
a
perfect
representation,
but
I
maintain
that
it's
the
best
model
so
far
that
we
we
have
for
doing
that.
A
I,
don't
think
that
going
out
there,
fishing
for
a
a
more
representative
group
is
actually
going
to
lead
to
anything
productive
other
than
a
a
an
unrepresentative
selective
committee
of
people
who
you
know
a
vocal
enough,
but
aren't
invested
enough
to
put
real
resources
in.
That's
that's
my
perspective,
but
have
been
at
your
hands.
D
So
I
mean
that's
a
good
point.
I
just
want
to
say
there
may
be
reasons
why
people
aren't
participating
others
and
just
they
don't
have
the
resources
like
there
may
be
other
artificial
barriers
that
we
have
the
participation
and
if
we
can
identify
them,
then
we
can
fix
them
right.
So
if
they're,
probably,
if
somebody
is
coming
to
us
and
saying
we
have
this
particular
problem
and
we're
not
enabled
to
fix
it,
then
we
should
resolve
that
and
make
it
sure
that
they
can
for
state
it
that
way.
I.
A
E
That
already
know
a
lot
about.
Node
know
how
to
figure
out
things
themselves
etc,
and
that
kind
of
leaves
out
the
feedback
from
people
that
are
not.
You
know
that
have
to
use
it
or
want
to
use
it
somehow,
but
are
not
necessarily
seubert
invested
in
it.
If
you'll
have
me
and-
and
so
I
do
actually
have
a
bit
of
a
concern
that
we
are
missing
out
on
those
areas.
I'll
give
you
an
example
like
I
never
realized
until
I
talked
to,
like
you
know,
an
enterprise
developer.
Otherwise,
who
would.
A
A
E
Except
to
ask
them,
but
like
I
would
not
know,
because
you
know
these
are
the
kind
of
like,
because
that
people
don't
typically
bring
up
so
I,
don't
know,
I
see
value
in
getting
more
more
feedback.
It's
just
that
I
don't
want
it
as
a
you
know.
Another
venue
for
pushing
a
corporate
agenda
like
what
we
are.
D
Like
like
just
the
technical
barriers
alone,
are
enough
to
keep
a
lot
of
people
out,
but
at
the
same
time
I.
Don't
think
that
representation
in
any
kind
of
committees
ever
going
to
fix
that,
because
the
community
is
just
way
too
big.
We're
always
going
to
leave
a
ton
of
people
out
if
we
try
to
like
staff
a
particular
body
and
say
you're,
your
representative
of
the
users
like
tell
us
what
you
want
like
really.
The
only
way
that
we
can
do.
E
D
A
So
I
think,
while
I
maintain
that
the
structure
we
have
is
is
the
best
structure
for
governance
and
direction
of
the
project.
I'm.
You
know
I
think
we
do
need
to
have
beat,
have
our
minds
open
for
this
and
continually
looking
at
ways
to
to
reach
out
and
connect
but
yeah
if
it
comes
to
any
questions
of
governance,
which
is
where
it,
which
is
my
issue
here.
With
this
discussion
in
the
imagery
number
66,
then
I
maintain
that
what
we've
got
is
good.
A
F
D
D
A
A
So
I
can
I
suggest
that
this
is
just
something
that
I'm
not
sure
that
we
can
get
actual
resolute
actionable
resolution
on,
but
it
is
certainly
something
that
we
should
be
concerned
about
on
an
ongoing
basis.
How
do
we
reach
out?
How
do
we
lower
barriers?
How
do
we
connect
better
with
users
in
there
you
know
various
forms
and
how.
A
Who
what
it
means
to
be
a
user,
because
that
mean
we
shouldn't
be
too
blinded
by
our
print
our
preconceptions
about
what
it
means
to
be
a
user,
that
it's
likely
that
we'll
miss
a
sector
of
users.
If
we
do
that
and
don't
continue
to
try
and
and
and
then
learn
about
and
understand
those
those
users
now,
unless
anyone
wants
to
suggest
an
action
that
we
can
take,
you.
D
D
E
D
We
could
build
something
similar
and
have
the
the
Marketing
Committee,
which
is
essentially
all
of
the
members.
Companies
provide
input
into
that
survey
and
then
distribute
it.
But
when
we
end
up
doing
the
surveys
they
can
distribute
is
widely
among
the
member
companies.
A
lot
of
their
developers
still
demands
models
so.
B
E
D
Specific
things
that
we
want
to
learn,
we
can
do
that
again.
I
mean
that
there's
always
an
understanding
that
there's
a
huge
selection
bias.
No
surveys
right,
but
if
you
ask
particular
questions
you
can
quantify
the
bias
so,
for
instance,
like
in
the
server
that
we
just
did
where
we
had
like
twelve
or
thirteen
hundred
responses.
D
One
of
the
questions
was
how
much
experience,
and
no
do
you
have
so
we
know
based
on
node
adoption
trends.
We
know
how
much
experience
is
out
there
and
we
can
kind
of
say
like
oh
wow.
This
is
representative
of
like
this
25%
cluster
of
our
user
base
and
so
yeah.
So
it's
actually
it's
really
usable
data.
You
just
have
to
make
sure
that
you
can
quantify
it
right,
so
you
can
slice
about
them
and
know
what
is
represented
in
love,
I,.
A
Think
we
do
have
to
be
careful
with
using
the
member
companies
specifically
as
a
group,
not
not
that
I.
You
know
I,
think
there's
value
there
and
I
think
that
they
are.
They
are
actually
a
good
slice
of
of
concern
like
in
terms
of
the
different
ways
they
use
node,
but
we
we
have
had
this
sort
of
explicit
separation
between
technical
governments
and
and
foundation
governments,
and
we
don't
want
to
blow
those
blind
too
much
to
make
it
so
that
you
can
you
buy
control
over
note
by
buying
into
the
foundation.
A
A
Let's
move
on:
let's
we
can
revisit
this
one,
maybe
in
the
future.
We
need
to
come
back
to
it
now
and
again
to
to
discuss
it,
but
if
we
can
keep
it
to
actionable
things,
so
if
you've
got
a
suggestion
for
what
we
can
do,
then
let's
do
that.
Otherwise
we're
just
going
to
go
around
in
circles
with
discussion.
So
next
one
is
this
your
number
59
again,
which
is
tsc
scope?
Michael,
don't
talk
about
we're
at
two
with
up
to
with
this
and
how
we
might
be
able
to
move
forward.
D
D
So,
first,
let's
talk
about
the
scope
part,
so
there's
basically
a
statement
in
there
that
says
that
the
tsc
directly
overseas
core
and
the
projects
that
need
to
be
integrated
into
the
development,
of
course,
and
as
sort
of
an
exception
to
that
there's
this
mentorship
things,
but
it
gets
us
out
of
long-term
it's
the
tsc
out
of
long-term
hosting
of
projects
and
essentially
kicks
that
decision
down
the
road
a
little
bit
to
figure
out
where
those
projects
go,
so
it
I.
We
really
need
to
figure
out
like
is
that
acceptable
to
everybody?
D
D
Yeah
I
mean
for
some
in
particular,
like
men
or
I,
don't
know
some
that
are
pretty
tightly
closed
or
Libya
v.
It
doesn't
seem
bad
to
have
those
their
ongoing
right.
Libya
v
would
be
so
so.
Projects
that
need
to
be
integrated
in
the
core
development
would
stay
under
the
tsc.
So,
like
evangelism
does
a
ton
of
stuff,
that's
not
core,
but
it's
integrating
the
development
it
stays
under
inclusivity
is
the
same
way
right.
They're
doing
a
lot
of
stuff
outside
of
core
libya.
D
V
doesn't
want
to
step
outside
of
core,
but
it's
integrating
core
development.
It
would
go
there.
You
can
also
see
something
like
serial
port,
probably
land
as
well
like
if
we,
if
we
decided
that
one
of
the
ways
to
make
surreal
port
better
was
to
integrate
it
with
core
development
that
would
come
into
the
TSE.
Still
it's
just
really
things
like
express
would
not
be
in,
or
you
know,
appium
or
node
comps
and
some
of
the
other
proposals.
It
does
kind
of
draw
that
line
and.
A
F
G
A
D
D
It's
separated
as
being
a
completely
independent
project.
It
would
still
be
an
independent
project.
Just
like
core
is
an
independent
project.
It
would
just
be
under
the
tsc,
so
the
TSE
would
be
like
responsible
for
making
sure
that
the
communication
and
the
infrastructure
was
there
for
them
time.
You
go
to
work,
I
find.
E
That
using
NPM
as
a
litmus
test,
for
you
know
this
specific
you
know
is,
is
a
well
rate
policy
and
that's
good
for
that.
Let's
acknowledge
that
mpm
is
a
little
bit
like
particular,
and
all
sorts
of
hypothetical
is
not
even
in
the
foundation
at
this
point.
So
I
think.
If
you
look
at
the
other
project,
we
mostly
be
like
this
policy
would
lead
to
desirable
results.
E
D
What
do
you
mean
so
I
did
mentorship
stuff
is
the
mentorship
stuff
is
carved
out,
is
an
exception
to
this
and
were
we're
basically
going
to
mentor
projects
as
part
of
the
tsc
and
then
put
them
like
stay
would
just
be
hosted
somewhere
else
long
term,
and
so
we're
going
to
need
to
like
either
find
or
invent
a
place
within
the
land.
But
that's
that's
literally
a
project.
We
have
to
kick
down
the
road
and
it's
not
something
of
the
tsc
can
solve
by
itself.
So.
G
H
D
E
F
This
party
see
made
clear,
I
think
of
me
in
the
changes
michael
home.
It
is
how
this
river
stuff
comes
together,
so
things
like
express
its
moved
into
into
the
foundation,
but
its
relationship
with
no
toc
milk
or
is
what
is
being
what
we're
trying
to
sketch
out.
So
the
woodland
express
came
over.
The
expressway
is
org,
the
pillar,
dis
org
and
the
ashp
or
those
three,
the
ownership
of
those
github
organizations
transferred
to
the
foundation.
F
F
D
Sorry,
there's
some
stuff
in
the
background
here,
but
one
of
the
reasons
why
it's
not
spelled
out
as
explicitly
in
the
document
is
that
when
we
figure
out
where
things
will
go
long
term,
we
may
decide
to
change
how
we
structure
that
ownership
right
like
if
it's
going
to
eventually
go
into
a
different
foundation.
We
may
work
out
an
agreement
where
the
tsc
is
part
of
that
foundation
in
some
way
and
we
can
run
the
mentorship
through
there
or,
if
there's
another
part
of
the
node
foundation.
D
Where
we
put
these
projects,
then
that
would
be
part
of
that
as
well.
So
this
is
sort
of
part
of
that
moving
moving
forward
thing
once
we
figure
out
where
these
projects
go.
This
will
be
more
explicit,
but
you
know
nothing.
Nothing
is
changing.
We're
not
jettisoning
any
of
the
recent
needs.
Express
stuff
at
all.
That's
still
like
under
the
foundation.
D
It's
that
Express
isn't
under
the
dis
working
groups
per
view,
you're
saying
versus
it's
still
under
the
Foundation's
pervy
was
up
yeah,
yes,
I
mean
you
could
kind
of.
Think
of
mentorship
is
like
a
project
inside
of
the
tsc.
We're
like
the
tsc
is
keeping
up
to
date
with
like
how
things
are
going
like.
We
can
give
you
an
update
about
like
how
Express
is
going,
and
it's
going
pretty
well,
while
we're
meant
wearing
your
project
and
getting
its
its
legs
and
everything.
But
it's
not
like
we're
intervening.
They
still
have
a
lot
of
autonomy.
A
A
D
Your
hands
thing:
here's
the
thing:
here's
the
thing
right:
we
we
can't,
we
can't
do
anything
to
express
that
expresses
own
government
doesn't
want
us
to
do
so.
What
we're
going
to
have
to
do
is
really
think
about
like
what
is
a
good
place
and
structure
for
projects
like
this
in
the
future,
build
that
place
somewhere
and
a
lot
of
this
isn't
the
responsibility
of
people
here,
because
it
won't
be
under
the
tsc,
but
bet
that
place
will
need
to
be
attractive
enough
or
Express
to
want
to
go
there
and
for
them
to
elect
together.
F
So
so
what
happens
with
express
is
a
decision
between
the
Foundation
Board
and
the
Express
TC.
This
group,
here
is
our
only
role
with
regards
to
express
is
to
mentor
at
a
mentor
that
TC
as
they
establish
their
government.
So
it's
at
some
point
in
the
future
the
express
TC
says:
hey.
This
is
really
working
out.
We
want
to
go
somewhere
else,
for
whatever
reason:
that's
a
discussion
that
TC
needs
to
have
with
the
Foundation
Board,
not
us
rusting,
tsc1,
ogc,.
F
E
F
D
D
Michael
does
I'm
gonna
say:
what's
the
line
between
the
tsc
and
the
CTC,
then,
if
TC
is
right
under
the
TSE,
like
that's,
basically
where
it
is
now,
there's
just
less
there's
a
couple
of
working
groups
that
pop
up
under
the
tsc
but
the
CTC,
and
do
you
see
to
have
a
very
similar
relation?
Did
you
know?
D
Okay,
so
they'd
still
be
that
the
seat
that
TFC
is
looking
at
higher
level
things,
but
really
still
node
focused
yeah,
node
marketing
team
and
the
note
whatever
versus
you
know.
One
point
it
was
going
to
be
the
group
that
would
look
over
I
guess
the
different,
potentially
different
projects
where
it's
you
know,
they're,
not
as
node
focused
like
Express.
D
D
C
D
D
F
H
H
F
If
somebody
wanted
to
work
on
some
of
the
debug
tools,
for
instance,
that
are
really
central
to
call
it
of
an
eye
on
there
for
a
while
and
bring
those
into
court
right,
then
I
was
something
that
is
very
central
and
could
easily
come
in
as
a
project
under
under
the
tsc,
similar
to
what
we
did
with
man
right
or
working
your
feet
now
to
see
I
TGM,
no
chips,
no
jobs.
Well.
F
This
is
a
good
example
and
no
jet
private,
but
if
it's
something
that
is
not
really
central
decor
like
an
express
for
some
of
these,
you
know
more
ecosystem
focus
things.
Then
those
things
would
really
make
more
sense
to
come
in
as
independent
things
under
the
foundation
rather
than
under
the
tsc.
So
it's
really
trying
to
draw
a
clear
distinction
between
what
we
as
a
TFC,
have
purview
over
and
have
an
interest
in
having
purview
more
than
what
is
better
left
as
an
independent
project.
D
Right:
okay,
so
that
I
can
understand
that
and
then
I
say,
the
concern
is
whether
you
know
the
foundation
was
first
set
up.
It
was
like
well,
the
technical
decisions
are
deferred
to
the
tsc.
This
de
lutz,
that
somewhat
in
that
you
know
the
foundation
could
bring
in
additional
projects
that
the
node
technical
leaders
might
not
agree
with,
but
wouldn't
necessarily
be
involved
in
the
decision
right.
Oh.
F
D
A
That's
my
concern.
It
really
is
the
Queen
limited
scope
too
much
here
then.
Does
that
opening
Avenue
for
more
easily
bringing
other
technical,
technical
sections
of
the
foundation?
Is
that
because
I
did
the
foundation
as
far
as
I'm
concerned
should
be
three
sections
and
the
end
and
the
technical
section
should
be
led
by
the
tsc
and
if
we
open
the
door
it'll
to
having
a
technical
section
to
the
foundation,
I
think
that's
going
to
lead
to
a
bad
place.
D
Right,
the
other
model
is
that
the
TFC
expands
to
include
representatives
from
these
other
projects
so
that
you
know
the
existing.
The
existing
group
gets
to
decide
what
comes
in
and
then,
as
once,
you've
made
the
decision
to
say,
like
Express
should
come
in,
they
get
a
representation
which
may
be
something
original
I.
You
know
had
involvement
in
that
initial
decision,
so
you
know
you
sort
of
got
what
you
asked
for.
D
Yeah
so
I
think
the
thing
that
some
of
the
board
members
are
struggling
with
and
that
we
also
like
every
one
of
these
meetings,
there's
been
struggle
over
is
having
things
so
close
to
core
when
you
bring
them
in
blesses
them
in
a
particular
way
that
nobody
really
wants
to
do
and
as
far
as
representation
goes,
this
group
is
not
a
great
representation
of
the
broader
community.
So
if
you
were
to
create
a
place
for
projects
land,
you
would
probably
want
it
to
look
at
the
difference
than
this
and
not
have
everything
be
branded.
D
As
this
thing,
this
is
right
next
to
into
a
core,
but
that's
that's
the
main
concern.
So
it's
not
that
there
shouldn't
be
an
autonomous
group
that
has
these
projects
in
the
future.
It's
that
that
should
probably
be
separated
from
core
in
a
really
distinctive
way,
without
removing
any
of
the
ability
of
this
group
to
bring
in
projects
that
do
need
to
be
integrated
in
the
core
development
right
like
we
wouldn't
want
to
be
in
a
situation
where
you
know
that
the
tsc
could
not
bring
in
something
like
no
chips
or
nay
in
the
future.
D
Right
but
I
guess
it's
like
you
know:
do
you
need
you're
almost
describing
a
third
level,
but
if
you
have
that
third
level,
you
need
the
tsc
in
the
CTC
or
do
they
just
collapse
back
into
one
I
think
that
the
volume
of
work,
even
in
managing
all
of
the
little
components
that
are
outside
of
cork
or
like
committing
decor,
is
enough
of
a
test
to
keep
them
separate.
I
mean
the
ctc
is
getting
bigger
and
has
like
a
fuller
plate.
Every
meeting
I
wouldn't
want
to
combine
that
group
with
another
group
I.
D
Yeah
I
know
what
you're
saying
like
the
CTC
has
the
overall
authority,
because
you
know
all
the
things
that
we
you
know.
The
things
you
talk
about
being
part
of
the
tsc
are
now
really
so
related
to
core
that
you
know
the
core
technical
committee
should
still
have
input
on
those
but
they've
delegated
to
the
smaller
set
that
care
about.
Looking
at
the
bigger
picture.
D
Okay,
so
I
mean
did
these
these
things
don't
fit
into
a
hierarchy
like
that,
though
right
I
mean
none
of
you
really
have
to
look
at
it
as
a
like
a
sort
of
an
autonomous
unit
of
responsibilities.
So
the
CTC
does
currently
own
all
of
core
and
everything
that
ever
gets
committed
to
core,
and
but
you
wouldn't
want
them
managing
the
website,
and
you
wouldn't
want
that.
You
wouldn't
expect
them
to
relieve
me
on
top
of
what
was
going
into
the
website.
H
H
A
Did
this
we
split,
if
you
remember
back
to
the
discussions,
I
think
Michael,
you
instigated
it,
which
was
to
have
two
separate
meetings,
one
for
organizational
and
one
for
technical.
That's,
essentially
what
we're
in
what
we've
ended
up
is
with
tsc
NCTC,
but
the
structure
isn't
quite,
as
is,
it
hasn't
been
documented
to
be
quite
that.
D
Well
and
I
think
all
of
it.
We
also
left
kind
of
the
website
under
the
CTC
as
well.
So
we
didn't
take
enough
I,
think
interest
in
that
which
was
a
mistake
and,
and
some
of
the
other
groups
that
probably
should
have
brought
up
to
the
top
as
well,
but
but
also
I.
Think
like
another
factor
in
this,
is
that
at
the
ctc
or
sorry
that
the
tsc
has
a
board
seat
and
so
overseeing
all
the
components
of
core
and
being
specifically
focused
on
core
but
but
having
a
more
holistic
view
of.
D
It
is
really
useful
for
the
board
representation
part
of
that,
because
it
can
make
sure
that
the
foundation
is
it
alignment
with
all
of
the
moving
parts
of
core
and
if
you
lose
focus
because
you
start
broadening
too
much,
it
makes
that
difficult
then
puts
way
more
pressure
on
one
representative
to
do
all
of
that.
Yeah.
A
D
A
Okay,
we're
getting
towards
the
end
of
our
time.
You
can
we
Michael.
Can
we
to
go
and
put
together
some
wording
for
what
needs
to
be
voted
on
like
let's
just
make
a
sentence,
even
if
it's
just
gettin
each
other
player
to
vote
on
this
part
of
the?
What
a
public
whistle
the
whole
progress?
Let's
just
make
it
actionable
for
next
week,
right.
E
D
D
A
Just
don't
want
the
whirling
to
make
it
so
that
you
know
six
months
down
the
track.
Some
development
happens
and
we
need
to
expand
the
scope
of
the
foundation
to
include
you
know
something
and
we
look
at
the
tsc
and
we
say
well
the
TSE
earthbound
itself
by
this.
In
this
way,
therefore,
it's
not
the
right
place
for
it
to
go
there,
for
the
foundation
is
going
to
have
multiple
technical
groups
operating
and
directly
underneath
the
board.
I.
Don't
want
that
to
be
the
case.
A
F
F
H
F
F
D
F
D
Also,
if
the
tsc
wants
to
expand
its
scope
later
beyond
this
like
this
can
get
changed
and
you
can,
like
you
know,
say
to
the
board:
hey.
We
want
to
take
on
this
responsibility
or
whatever.
What
this
mainly
does
is
that
it
means
that
projects
like
appium
and
other
projects
that
have
been
kind
of
pinging
us
lately
can
stop
sending
applications
to
be
mentored,
because
we're
we're
trying
to
focus
it
a
little
bit
more,
that's
kind
of
a
different.
D
India
on
the
board
is
not
going
to
do
anything
that
the
tsc
is
going
to
be
super
out
of
that
I
mean
like
that's
just
highly
unlikely
and
yeah
I.
Wouldn't
worry
too
much
about
that
I
mean
technically,
the
board
could
do
whatever
it
wants.
Whenever
was
so
technically,
the
poor
could
go
off
and
start
a
project,
but
like
it's
just
really
unlikely
right.
G
F
D
D
E
Yes,
although
I
mean
arguably,
would
express
three
don't
really
like
the
people
that
are
now,
unless
you
see
don't
really
care
but
yeah
like
it's,
it's
not
I'm
all
confused
again,
actually,
okay,
so
my
understanding
currently
is
like
in
this.
With
this
proposal,
we
like
this
to
you
see
this
group
of
people
would
live.
We
would
limit
ourselves
pretty
much
to
hope
for
and
then.
D
No
you're
projecting
it
out
too
far
like
we
don't
know
where
those
projects
are
going
to
live
long
term
and
wherever
they
do
end
up
living
long
term,
that
they're
going
to
be
independently
functioning
bodies
anyway,
so
don't
need
a
lot
of
oversight.
Right
like
this
is
this
is
in
the
future.
What
we're.
D
D
Question
here
is:
what
is
the
TS
you
wanna
focus
on,
not
where
things
outside
of
what
we
might
want
to
focus
on
and
on
right
like
if,
if
the
TSE
wants
to
be
more
focused
on
court
and
by
the
way
like
it
would
be,
CSE
would
be
focused
on
like
filled
and
the
internationalist
the
localisation
work
and
then
and
the
BB
as
well
with
core
right
so,
which
is
all
the
stuff
around
courts
integrated
into
core
development.
Yeah.
Well,.
A
This
two
digits
two
issues.
Then
it
sounds
like
you're
conflating
two
things:
what
does
the
tsc
want
to
focus
on
and
what
do
we
think
the
foundation
should
be
focused
on
at
a
technical
level?
I
don't
particularly
want
to
separate
those
two
things
right
now
and
if
we're-
and
if
this
is
all
about
saying
the
tsc-
is
only
about
core-
and
there
is
scope
for
introducing
other
technical
parts
of
the
foundation.
I'm,
a
big
minus
one.
A
A
A
E
A
Was
another
one,
but
I
think
we
wasn't
really
important.
It
was
more
bit
was
the
same
question
really
Michael
Dawson's
thing
about
right,
yeah.
So,
let's,
let's
try
and
make
this
actionable
for
next
week.
Take
it
back
to
github
and
we
can
have
doing
one-on-one
discussions
as
well.
If
that
helps,
but
I
do
have
to
drop
as
well
so
I
gotta
drop.
If
you
don't
wants
to
continue,
that's
fine,
but
I've
got
to
get
so
sorry.
I've
got
another
important
treaty.
Alright,.
E
A
E
D
Think
it
might
be
useful
instead
of
rewording,
a
document.
You
know
it
could
be
a
simple
question
as
new
you
know.
Should
the
TSE
I,
you
know
trying
word
it
so
that
it's
clear
on
the
specific
issues.
You
know
the
scope
of
the
TSE.
Is
it
and
would
that
result
in
other
similar
relationships
with
the
border,
not.
F
F
F
H
F
H
B
Corrigan
said
well
at
some
point:
there
was
a
proposal
I
think
by
microphone.
That
stated
mission
of
the
foundation
was
to
promote
and
encourage
the
adoption
of
node
right
and
then
still
give
the
tsc
some
flexibility
on
how
to
implement
that
right,
and
it
doesn't
mean
that
has
to
go
and
host
all
a
bunch
of
projects.
But
it
is
it
the
option
to
do
Scott.