►
Description
A
B
Yes,
I
am
one
okay
and
I'm,
almost
I'm
working
in
assembling
the
agenda
for
the
collaborative
summit.
So
if
you're
working
group
wants
to
have
a
session,
I
was
not
do
a
talk
or
whatever
please
command
under
the
no
no
Jes
/
ish.
Some
meat,
/
issues,
/
101
out
there
and
you
know
so
that
we
know
and
I
can
put
you
in
the
agenda-
do.
B
A
B
C
B
D
A
E
E
E
A
E
Just
repeat
the
same
exact
notice,
my
guess
so
yeah
we
got
James
in
there.
We
got
targets
in
there
and
that's
pretty
much
it
I
know
miles.
Has
feelings
about
this.
I
know
he
was
also
out
of
office.
I
think
he's
back
this
week,
I'm
not
sure,
though
anyway
again
yeah,
please
comment
and
and
let's
leave
it
on
the
agenda
and
I'll
I'll.
Take
the
action
item
of
you
know,
grabbing
the
right
people
and
pointing
them
at
it
and
saying
we
need.
We
need
your
input
on
this.
E
C
E
Yeah
I
mean
legitimate,
legitimate
James
has
asked
to
be
promoted
by
the
way,
a
legitimate
you
know
thing.
A
legitimate
conclusion
could
be
that
we
are
unable
to
continue
we're
not
going
to
come
to
a
conclusion
might
not
be
the
most
helpful,
but
it's
more
helpful
than
you
know
not
coming
to
a
conclusion,
but
not
saying
that
we're
not
going
to
come
to
a
conclusion
anyway.
E
A
D
E
A
E
E
B
B
A
A
B
E
So
yeah,
so
that's
a
summary
of
the
last
comment
that
was
in
the
issue
tracker
from
six
days
ago
and
there's
no
feedback
from
of
that
right.
So
again,
I
think
unless
somebody
wants
to
argue
passionately
that
we
need
to
do
this
or
can
never
do
this
or
need
to
do
stalkers
option
I,
don't
know
that
we
can
do
much
without
Nikita
here
and
other
than
ask
people
to
you
know:
I
mean.
E
A
E
It's
actually
one
that,
like
I,
think
you
got
some
there
on
so
because
this
fundamentally
changes
the
way
the
github
organizations
managed
I
didn't
want
this
to
sneak
in
I
wanted
unanimity.
If
we
were
going
to
send
it
up
to
the
board
turns
out
that
of
the
18
current
members
of
the
TSC
16
approved
it
Jeremiah
did
not
approve
it
he's
not
here,
but
I
believe
that
his
objections
are
simply
to
you
know
he
wants
some
additional
wording.
He
want
some
clarification.
E
He
wants
some
things
made
explicit.
That
should
be
no
problem,
not
worried
about
rod
objected
on
a
more
fundamental
level
too.
So
what
this
would
do
is
this
would
make
it
to
that
management
of
the
github
organization
was
not
delegated
or
not
assigned
not
completely
under
the
TSC
anymore.
It
would
be
a
shared
responsibility
of
the
TSC
and
Kham
Kham,
the
community
community,
calm,
calm
and.
E
C
C
C
They
are
inserting
another
group
that
has
entirely
different
rules
for
membership
that
has
arguably
an
easier
barrier
to
entry,
but
you
don't
need
to
trick
contribute
to
the
technical
project
to
get
on
that
group
I'm,
not
criticizing
that,
but
that
group
has
a
completely
different
function,
so
the
TSC
is
giving
up
collaborator
space
to
a
group
that
is
not
collaborators
that
do
not
contribute
to
the
technical
space
should
be
restricted.
It
should
be
owned
by
the
contributors
and
that
bubbled
up
through
the
GSE.
C
If
the
community
community
needs
more
access
to
a
to
a
github
space,
then
they
should
go
and
get
another
github
space,
and
perhaps
it
should
be
promoted
as
well.
There's
another
top-level
organization
and
it's
used
for
community
things,
but
this
this
really
is
ceding
responsibility
of
the
technical
space
to
the
community
and
I.
Don't
I,
don't
see
why
we
would
do
that
to
the
to
the
contributors.
It's
just.
It
doesn't
make
sense
to
me
like
what
do
want
them
to
own
less
of
the
project.
E
E
E
Basically,
when
we're
putting
together
onboarding
stuff,
you
know
it
was
like
you
know:
I
wrote
that
you
know
you
know.
You
know
on
boring
someone.
You
need
to
add
them
to
the
moderation
team,
so
get
someone
on
the
TSC
to
do
that,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
about
well.
Why
don't
we?
You
know
why
not
you,
you
know,
shouldn't
calm,
calm,
be
able
to
do
that,
etc,
etc,
and
that
sort
of
a
that
conversations
then
just
kind
of
exploded.
C
Didn't
argue
at
the
time,
a
win
that
the
moderation
team
was
set
up
as
a
shared
responsibility,
with
the
calm
calm,
that
this
was
a
slippery
slope
towards
the
collaborators
having
less
control
of
their
own
project.
This
is
precisely
that
point.
This
is
this.
Is
this
is
a
slippery
slope
that
we
are
currently
sliding
down
now,
collaborators
have
less
control
over
their
own
space.
They
have
less
control
over
the.
How
they
Internet
can
that
they
be
their
business.
I
have
less
control
over
their
governments.
It's
makes
no
sense
to
me
it's
just.
A
E
C
Contributors
and
who
contributes
to
the
project,
it's
that
he's
absolutely
sure.
We
recognized
that
from
the
beginning
that
it's
difficult
to
say
that
there's
there's
just
this
one
avenue
to
contribute
to
the
project,
but
the
problem
with
making
it
more
expensive
is
that
you
have
to
have
a
gating
mechanism,
and
this
is
exactly
the
problem
the
community
committee
has
is
having
having
a
gauging
making
these
in
sorts
of
membership.
It
is
much
more
vague,
it's
much
easier
to
get
on
there
without
making
material
contributions
to
the
project.
C
So
it's
imperfect,
but
we
have
a
way
of
saying.
Yes,
this
person
has
a
commitment
to
the
project
proven
by
things
we
can
point
to
ie
commits
who
request
discussions
on
the
technical
project
is
straightforward.
The
community
community
just
by
nature,
can't
have
that,
and
you
know
the
more
we
push
it
to
Heather.
Perhaps
it
even
undermines
its
role,
but
if
we
want
to
say
yeah
now
all
the
contributors
contributions
to
the
project
is
a
much
more
expensive
thing:
it's
better
define
it,
or
else
it
just
becomes
this
nebulous
concept.
H
So
in
this
this
goes
on
with
kind
of
Academy
act.
My
approach
to
PR,
with
the
caveat
that
exactly
this
kind
of
thing
needs
to
documented
better
with
the
with
the
community
community.
There
has
to
be
a
better
understanding
of
how
how
someone
becomes
a
community
committee
and
therefore
gets
these
commissions
right
that
does
have
yet
to
be
defined
and
I
know.
Richie
left
two
comments,
you
know:
would
some
of
the
existing
documentation
without
their
cover
that
and
I,
don't
believe
so.
H
I
think
that
the
community
committee
needs
to
kind
of
have
better
definition
of
what
it's
Barton
or
what
its?
What
bar
are.
Somebody
needs
to
reach
to
become
a
community
community
committee,
member
that
has
permissions
owner
owner
permissions
in
New,
York,
okay,
that
anybody
can
become
that
then
one
we
have
a
significant
security
issue
with
the
project.
All.
A
Right,
but
that
that
has
changed.
It's
no
longer
anybody.
You
know
in
the
bootstrap
phase
there
was
like
if
you
came
in
and
you
participated,
but
that's
changed
and
I
think
that's
been
documented
as
well.
I'd
have
to
go
back
and
see
to
what
level,
but
I
think
it
even
mirrors
what
the
TSE
has
in
terms
of
you
know
being
nominated
on
to
the
TSE
requires
like
and
and
it's
you
know,.
A
E
A
H
E
H
More
concrete
requirements,
but
there
is
more
of
a
concrete
trail
like
we
can
point
to
commit.
You
can
point
to
specific
code
contributions,
expertise
of
a
particular
part
of
the
code,
that
kind
of
thing
right
that
tend
to
be
much
more
concrete
than
the
community
facing
things.
That's
not
to
say
it's
more
important.
It's
just
saying
it's
a
different
way
of
measuring
it's
a
different
API
right.
So.
C
E
A
A
Like
you
know
pot,
you
know,
maybe
we
can
start
through
github
and
then
but
I
think
it's
a
conversation
that
needs
to
be
had
because
it
this
is.
This
is
just
an
example
of
the
kinds
of
things
that
it
may
you
know
block
or
get
in
the
way
of
that
kind
of
stuff.
You
know
our
fundamental
goal
has
been
to
not
get
in
the
way
of
people
contributing,
and
so
this
is
an
area.
We
should
probably
look
to
reduce
that
as
well.
E
D
F
E
E
A
J
J
A
Napi
so
again,
focus
of
our
next
iteration
is
going
to
be
the
testing
and
evangelization.
If
I'm,
remembering
correctly,
there's
one
or
two
other
things,
but
if
you're
interested
in
the
specifics
there
is
an
issue
in
the
repo.
The
a
bi-stable
noted
repo
documenting
what
we're
planning
for
that
next
iteration.
C
C
C
But
but
when
it
does
happen
expect
some
pull
requests
to
add
some
more
features,
various
people
that
want
them.
This
needs
some
new
algorithms.
In
there
TLS
1.3
is
coming
so
I
I'm
crossing
my
fingers
for
it
to
be
sooner
rather
than
later,
but
as
soon
as
it
happens,
it'll
I'm,
pretty
sure
it'll
will
see
a
pull
request
from
someone
right.
A
A
K
A
K
B
C
Is
there
any
sense
for
the
past
maturity
for
workers?
What
what's
the
trajectory?
What's
the
velocity
it
came
up
in
the
co
coverage
here,
where
you're
requested
to
add
the
thread
ID
to
their
file.
Name.
Thinking
about
that
in
terms
of
workers
is
experimental
right
now
yeah,
but
there
are
some
cases
where
it
makes
sense
to
treat
it
like
first
class
and
it's
a
really
tricky
area
to
be
in
because,
like
what
happens,
if
hypothetically
we
get
to
the
point
say
well,
this
is
the
experiment.
C
K
Ok
support
for
one
thing,
so
DB
changes
where
we
are
currently
accounting
for
workers
where,
like
that,
we
may
need
to
revisit
at
some
point.
I,
don't
think
that's
as
much
an
issue
as
you
think
it
might
be
because,
like
these
notes,
still
supports,
embedded
and
or
at
least
it
seeks
to
support,
embedding
notice
of
library,
and
that
is
generally
laid
out
to
support
multiple
noches
instances
per
process.
K
So
a
lot
of
where
we
are
accounting
for
workers
already
like
is
needed
for
something
else.
In
fact,
like
a
lot
of
the
work
being
up
to
the
initial
workers,
the
art
was
just
getting
some
of
the
embedding
stuff
in
better
shape,
so
yeah
I'm
not
actually
worried
about
that
a
lot,
and
at
least
in
the
case
of
that
specific
coverage
PR.
K
That
was
because
we
don't
have
inspector
support
for
workers
just
yet,
but
we
are
like
really
really
close
to
having
it
so
that
so
it's
like
in
that
case,
it's
just
gonna
resolve
itself.
We're
just
gonna.
Remove
that
one
check
that,
what's
in
the
original
coverage
BRE,
how
are
we
done?
The
other
thing
is
a
bit
more
tricky
like.
K
K
Well,
I,
don't
see
any
other
way
besides
reaching
out
to
people
and
seeing
whether
they
find
the
API
useful
yeah,
whether
they
have
any
feedback
for
that
available.
I'm
just
gonna
give
it
like
it's
not
even
48
hours
from
now.
I'm
gonna
give
a
talk
about
that,
and
this
is
definitely
one
of
the
things
I'm
gonna
mention
I.
G
E
J
E
A
A
C
K
A
A
C
B
A
B
A
M
L
Ali,
do
you
have
an
update
on
that
front
sure?
So?
Lately
not
a
lot
has
been
happening
when
Ethan
cooks,
the
main
things
that
are
remaining
when
he
cooks
are.
There
was
issues
around
performance
and
especially
for
promises,
and
there
might
be
some
v8
changes
that
were
on
the
table
and
that
discussion
actually
have
any
happened
recently
we
have
stalled
at
the
moment.
L
A
A
A
A
I
A
E
B
Timed,
the
issue
I
think
it
was
today
about
my
issue
about
using
symbols
in
not
core
more
or
less
for
creating
awareness
not
for
did
really
cussing.
So
let
me
give
you
the
number
and
but
just
just
for
awareness.
So
it's
it
was
not
a
discussion
point.
So
I've
been
symbol,
guidelines
and
issue.
Two
two,
six,
eight
four.