►
From YouTube: 2021-07-22-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
B
For
the
benefit
of
youtube
streamers,
I
will
announce
that,
in
addition
to
the
people
you
see
on
the
screen,
we've
also
got
beth
griggs,
garish,
punithel,
tobias
neeson
and
ruben
bridgewater
here.
Thank
you.
A
Okay,
so
moving
on
to
the
next
section
in
terms
of
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates,
there
is
a
board
meeting
tomorrow.
I
don't
have
anything
on
the
agenda
to
bring
on
behalf
of
the
node.js
project,
though
so
you
know,
let
me
know
if
there's
something
I've
missed
in
terms
of
cpc
major
sort
of
work
that's
going
on.
A
There
is
around-
I
think
I've
already
mentioned
this
last
week,
but
for
people
who
might
not
have
been
there
looking
at
the
community
fund,
which
is,
is
basically
the
travel
fund,
but
expanding
expanding
to
look
at
you
know
supporting
other
programs
as
well.
So
there's
some
proposals
being
worked
on
discussed
in
terms
of
how
to
use
some
of
that
money.
Since
we
haven't
spent
the
full
tribal
fund
and
the
other
one,
we
had
a
working
session
on
sort
of
technical
strategy
and
so
there's
some
work
on
that
side
as
well.
A
Okay.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
issues
that
were
tagged
for
the
agenda
and
I
think
the
first
one
we
should
start
with
is
the
node.js
mentorship
initiative
1057,
since
we
have
a
few
guests,
or
at
least
one
guest
to
cover
that
for
us
so
alex
you
want
to
take
it
away.
C
C
So
essentially
what
we
do
we
contact
groups
or
initiatives
within
the
node.js
community
and
see
if
they
require
any
help
working
on
things
that
you
know
certain
tasks
or
projects,
and
we
essentially
draw
from
the
node.js
community
that
for
mentees
for
an
opportunity
for
you
to
mentor
others
and
help
them
become
part
of
the
node.js
ecosystem
and
right
now
we
are
open
and
looking
for
mentors
or
other
groups
or
initiatives
that
may
need
help.
We
would
be
very
happy
to
to
bring
somebody
on
for
you
guys.
C
A
A
A
It's
just
want
to
highlight
that
they've
got
a
sort
of
a
good
process
to
understand
what
the
need
is
and
then
look
for
a
mentee
that
sort
of
matches
that,
as
opposed
to
the
other
way
around
right.
It's
not
it's,
not
a
hey.
We've
got
a
whole
bunch
of
mentees.
How
do
we
figure
out
where
to
place
them?
It's
more
like?
Where
can
we
find
the
need
and
then
find
the
mentees
that
fit
with
that?
A
C
A
Okay,
well
any
other
questions
or
anything
for
alex
before
we
move.
C
A
B
B
Folks,
I
I
I
like
this,
I
announce
you
and
you
show
up
to
dance
tradition
and
I
think
I
think
I
think
that
might
be
a
key.
A
D
I
don't
know,
did
you
guys
make
any
progress
on
this
discussion?
Last
week
I
missed
last
week.
A
The
last
comment
was
on
the
29
days
ago
says
we
didn't
have
the
right
people
to
talk
about
this
in
the
tc
meeting
today.
If
I
went
back
to
the
agenda
for
last
week,
I'm
trying
to
remember,
but
I
think
it
would
have
been
similar,
so
I
don't,
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
new
since
then.
D
Yeah,
because
we
mateo
and
me
discussed
this
a
little
bit
and
basically,
I
think
what
we
wanted
to
suggest
was
having
some
kind
of
vendoring
it
in
similarly
to
we've
done
some
other
packages
like
npm,
and
so
it
would.
Basically,
the
suggestion
would
be
that
mandichi
would
live
outside
of
core
and
then
yes,
we
would
have
some
requirements
on
our
project
management
in
terms
of
lts
and
stuff
like
that.
D
D
D
B
A
D
E
E
B
A
I
think
high
level
we're
making
some
slow
progress
on
that
we'll
quickly
be
getting,
I
think,
to
some
of
the
the
more
difficult
ones,
but
I
don't
think
we've
quite
started
those
there
was
some
discussion
about
concern
about
pushing
accidentally,
pushing
a
main
branch:
sorry
re-pushing,
a
master
branch.
B
Yeah,
I
don't
know
like
that
is
discussion
at
this
meeting
with
the
that
and
that
conversation
ended
up
in
the
in
the
issue
tracker.
You
know
we
moved
it
to
the
issue
tracker
from
the
meeting
last
week
and
I
think
I
think
it
can
stay
there.
I
don't
know
that
that
that's
like
it
seems
like.
Oh,
it
seems
like
a
relatively
minor
detail
at
this
point.
I
think
I
don't
think
it's
like
a
major
threat.
A
A
Okay
and
if
not,
let's
move
on
to
three
zero
six,
nine
seven,
which
is
migration
of
core
modules,
to
primordials
that
one
I'm
just
opening
up.
F
B
B
It's
it's
sort
of
like
a
conversation
about
what
what
needs
to
happen.
What
decisions
need
to
be
made
for
us
to
move
forward
like
what
and
or
you
know
and
moving
forward,
might
be
agreeing
to
pause
it
indefinitely
or
whatever,
but
you
know
to
come
to
some
kind
of
conclusion
I
see
antoine
has
unmuted
himself
so
I'll.
Let
you.
H
Yeah,
I'm
not
sure
I
can
say
much
more
of
what
I
said
on
the
issue
tracker,
but
if
you
can
find
some
kind
of
traders
for
compromise,
maybe
now
is
a
good
time
we're
going
to
do.
You
want
to
have
something
to
to
add
from
what
you
said
on
the
each
tracker.
I
So,
there's
not
much
more
from
my
perspective
to
say
pretty
much
because
most
arguments
were
laid
out
there.
It
felt
to
me
that
at
least
like
only
my.
A
D
H
I
So
I've
seen
the
suggestion
for
the
proposal,
however,
like
there
were
multiple
things
in
there,
which
would
still
like,
for
example,
performance
issues.
In
case
we
move
more
things
to
primordials
and
and
therefore
I
personally
would
rather
not
do
it
as
it
was
laid
out,
but
I'm
happy
to
also
write
it
down
and
to
respond
on
the
issue.
A
Tracker
would
you
be
like
proposing
a
counter
proposal
or
a
or
explaining
you
know
why?
You
don't
think
that
particular
proposal
works.
I
I
would
mainly
suggest
that
well,
no,
I
would
mainly
probably
go
through
the
suggestions
why
I
would
personally
not
move
those
to
primordials,
and
there
are
also
general
reasons
which
would
apply
to
all
codes,
no
matter
what,
for
example,
having
a
higher
barrier
for
people
to
contribute,
and
things
like
that
which
won't
go
away
if
we
only
partially
move
code
into
primordials,
and
it
will
also
not,
for
example,
solve
issues
in
total,
because
if
someone
would
and
then
manipulate
at
least
a
little
bit
of
the
code
base,
which
is
not
moved
to
primordials
and
then
uses
that
code,
for
example,
in
rebel,
it
would
still
break.
I
So
there
is
for
me
at
least
the
the
compromise
would
not
really
work.
That's
at
least
my
point
of
view.
I'm
I'm
happy
to
go
into
more
detail
in
writing.
B
B
Idea
to
put
a
put
at
least
a
brief
overview
of
that
in
the
in
the
issue
tracker
so
that,
for
you
know,
for
for
the,
for
the
record
quite
literally
an
issue,
I'm
a
problem,
I'm
having
with
not
been
active
in
this
conversation
is
that
I
don't
have-
and
I
suspect,
a
lot
of
other
people
on
the
tsc
are
like
this
too,
but
I
don't
have
a
good
idea
of
what
the
realistic
security
threat
is
like.
I
understand
that
primordials,
you
know
like
a
main
goal,
perhaps
the
the
main
goal.
B
Perhaps
the
only
goal
is
to
prevent
prototype,
manipulation,
attacks
and-
and
I
don't
really
have
a
good
sense
of
where,
when
why
and
how
this
is
a
realistic
threat
and
how
serious
it
is,
and
I'm
not
sure
how
many
other
people
in
the
tc
do
either.
And
I
wonder
if
that's
a
reason
why
other
people
are
not,
you
know,
are
not
weighing
in
and
perhaps
a
reason
why
it's
been
difficult
to
get
to
some
kind
of
resolution
and
I'll
stop
there.
So
someone
yeah.
D
Well,
I
can
second
that
I
mean
my
opinion
in
this
is
actually
is.
I
know
some
of
our
collaborators
feel
strongly
about
it.
I
don't
see
the
point
myself,
but
I
do
understand
that
collaborators
do
feel
strongly
about
it
and
I'm
more.
You
know
in
concern
that
about
their
strong
feeling
about
it
than
the
technical
aspects
of
it.
H
I
don't
think,
promote
yours
to
answer
your
question,
which
I
don't
think
promoters
bring
any
security
whatsoever,
because
that's
just
how
javascript
is
yeah
and
I
mean
I
think
node.js
itself
doesn't
have
any
what's
the
term
for
it,
but
I
I
don't
think
we
claim
we
have
any
security
implementation
even
on
on
worker
and
things
like
that.
We
said.
H
Oh,
you
can't
find
any
interested
code
in
this
because
we
we
know
we
can't
escape
the
same
bugs
so
promoters
are
not
about
not
a
good
response
to
a
security
risk
at
all.
It's
more.
B
Okay,
so
sorry,
so
it's
more
about
robert
said
it's
more
of
a
feature
and
I
was
going
to
say
so
so
it's
more
about
I
mean,
maybe
maybe
maybe
by
by
framing
it
as
an
attack
vector
I
was.
I
was
not
what
I
would
have.
What
it's
really
about
is
stability,
that
when
you
manipulate
a
prototype
for
your
own
purposes,
it
won't
crash
node.js
by
accident,
yeah
crash
results
in
undefined
behavior
or
whatever
exactly
yeah.
H
B
J
So
specifically,
if
you
use
the
assert,
if
you
use
the
assert
module
in
any
part
of
your
code
and
you're
testing
it
in
order
in
a
third-party
library
and
you're
testing,
your
code
with
just
the
error
object
that
that's
going
to
be
thrown
by
a
cert.
J
So,
if
you
do
instance
of
air,
even
if
it's
another
object,
but
it's
it's
will
return
false
because
just
will
change
all
the
globals
so
anyway.
I
I
just
wanted
to
to
add
this
to
the
table
like
from.
From
my
point
of
view
again,
I,
like
a
lot
of
people
care
a
lot
about
this
feature.
I
have
no,
I
am
the
it
has
downsides,
it
has
plus
sides
and
so
on.
J
However,
there
are
specific
parts
of
this
that
have
significant
performance
problems
and,
like
from
my
like,
from
my
point
of
view,
those
not
all
primordials
are
problematic.
Okay,
but
some
of
them
are
definitely
are,
and
the
ones
that
are
should
not
be
used
anywhere.
Essentially,
apart
from
that,
it's
we
have
identified
them.
J
We
have
pre
identified
already.
I
think
what
are
the
I
think
antoine
are
knows
more
than
me
on
what
are
exactly
the
ones
that
are
problematic,
essentially
a
lot
of
the
array
operation,
the
coring,
the
self
coring
one
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
but
there
are
a
lot
that
some
of
them
are
really
like:
it's
it's
they're,
not
great,
and
it's
we
should
probably
avoid
them
like
just
don't
use
them.
Okay,.
I
The
problem
with
that,
though,
is
that
there
is
pretty
much
no
point
in
only
moving
a
small
portion
of
the
code
to
use
primordials,
at
least
out
of
my
perspective.
The
reason
for
that
is
that
the
other
code
would
still
be
able
to
break
so.
Yes,
if
that
specific
code
part
would
be
manipulated,
it
would
prevent
energy
as
from
doing
any
unforeseen
behavior.
I
A
I
guess
like
if
you,
if
from
the
securities
perspective,
like
I
totally
follow
your
your
assertion
there,
that,
like
you
know,
if
you
fix
50
of
them
into
security-wise,
there
was
some
expectation,
the
other
50
weren't.
Then,
what's
the
point
from
from
what
anton
said
and
said
in
terms
of
like
avoiding
things
like
avoiding
ways
where
you
could
use
the
apis
or
whatever
and
get
unexpected
behavior
reducing
that
could
make
sense
and.
I
Then
it
becomes
a
bit
more
of
a
trade-off,
not
really
because
we
are
don't
only
and
we
like
pretty
much
any
program
that
we
run
does
not
only
contain
own
code
and
node.js
code.
It
contains
a
lot
of
libraries
that
are
written
in
user
space
and
those
do
not
prevent
any
malicious
behavior,
so
that
code
will
also
break
and
could
cause
any
thing
that
you
can
imagine
pretty
much
and
it
might
not
break
node.js
itself.
But
it
would
still
result
in
errors
that
the
user
would
not
anticipate
in
a
lot
of
cases.
A
You
know
I
wouldn't
advocate
for
us
to
ignore
the
usability
of
our
apis,
just
because
any
other
code
could
have
lousy
apis
right
like
so
from
the
can
we
make
our
api
as
usable
and
as
safe,
as
you
know,
as
safe
as
possible.
I
still
see
some
value
now.
I'm
not
saying
that
that
value
outweighs
the
cost
right,
I'm
just
saying.
I
I
Be
right
in
this
case
and
about
50
of
the
code,
so
some
node.js
code
might
not
break
in
that
case
anymore,
but
any
other
library
could
and
you.
We
have
to
rewrite
a
lot
of
code
to
use
primordials,
which
is
definitely
less
readable.
If
it
would
be
possible
to
have
regular
code
in
node.js
being
primordials
without
a
performance
penalty.
That
would
be
awesome.
I
think
we
all
would
agree
upon
that.
This
would
be
a
perfect
solution,
because
then
node.js
itself
would
and
not
be
determined
by
any
change
from
the
user
side.
I
But
this
is
how
javascript
works,
and
we
cannot
really
prevent
that
and
we
talked
into,
for
example,
also
the
va
team
about
in
this
problem
before
and
so
far
there
has
been
no
solution
in
a
way
that
would
not
have
a
downside.
B
Somebody
should
probably
summarize,
nikita
and
tobias
what
they've
been
saying
in
which
I'll
which
I
guess
I'll
do
unless
somebody
wants
to
respond
to
ruben
imminently:
okay,
okay,
so
so
nikita
was
talking
quite
a
bit
about
prototype
pollution
and
the
ecosystem,
and
how
primordials
is
not
a
solution
for
that
sort
of
stuff,
but
also
gave
a
plus
one
to
what
michael
was
saying
before
and
also
says
that
primordials
are
useful
and
just
not
a
solution
to
prototype
pollution
which,
as
we've
been
talking,
it's
a
it's.
B
It's
not
about
attacks.
It's
about
stability
and
some
other
things
or
predictability,
perhaps
is
even
a
better
word.
I
don't
know
anyway.
Tobias
writes.
I
think
the
idea
behind
primordials
is
nice
to
have.
But
the
question
boils
down
to:
is
it
worth
the
burden
and
the
efforts?
It's
less
readable
code
performance
problems,
inconsistencies
unclear
scopes
such
as?
Should
objects
returned
by
core
apis?
Have
properties
attached
to
the
object
prototype
by
the
user?
Non-Standard
javascript
is
a
burden
for
contributors
etc.
Is
it
real?
H
Yeah
and
I'd
like
to
second
what
tobias
said,
I
think
we
we
need
to
define
a
scope
for
from
of
yours,
because
currently
it's
yeah,
it's
just
very
fuzzy
and-
and
I
think
we
we
can
do
that,
but
yeah
yeah,
I'm
alone
on
that.
A
B
I
don't
think
those
are
the
options,
because
I
I
don't
I
so
so
primordials
everywhere.
All
the
time
forever
is
probably
unrealistic,
pausing
and
definitely
doesn't
really
solve
anything.
It's
like
it's
either
stop
entirely
and
just
unprioritize
things.
That's
that's
one
or
figure
out
what
benefits
from
like
what
parts
of
the
code
would
benefit
from
primordials,
where
we,
you
know
in
a
way
such
that
we
want
to
incur
the
cost
to
to
do
it
and
what
parts
of
the
of
core
we
don't
want
to.
B
I
So
I
would
have
a
suggestion
that
we
just
have
a
small
meeting
where
a
few
people
who
care
more
about
the
topic
come
together
and
then
find
solutions
that
we
could
vote
upon.
I
B
H
A
H
B
Yeah,
it's
really
it's
really
just
don't
do
it
at
all
or
do
some
of
it,
but
but
the
problem
with
do
some
of
it
is.
We
need
to
agree
on
what
what
some
of
it
you
know
which
which
which
ones
and
why
and
and
even
even
better,
would
be
not
not
an
agreement
on
which
what
parts
we're
doing
and
why
but
an
agreement
on
here's
how
we
decide
whether
just
just
like
we
need
we
need.
We
need
clear
values
whatever
to
to
to
decide
whether
something
is
in
core
or
not.
B
We
need
clear,
you
know
clear
criteria
to
decide
whether
or
not
something
should
you
know
whether
or
not
something
should
be
coded
with
primordials
or
not.
Don't
know
if
we'll
get
there,
but
that's
the
that's
the
that's
the
ideal
I
think
looks
like
antoine
raised
his
hand
yeah.
I
wanted.
H
To
put
a
sun
that
yeah
agreed
on
that,
what.
B
While,
while
people
ponder
that,
I
guess
some
more
chat
comments
from
nikita
plus
one
to
limiting
scope
minus
one
to
remove
it
completely,
some
api
should
ignore
prototype
properties.
For
example.
Everything
relates
to
child
process,
not
a
significant
performance
problem.
There
tobias
says:
how
can
we
ever
protect
async
functions
against
promise?
Dot
prototype
dot
then
equals
one.
Two
three.
B
So
anyway,
if
I
mean
I'm
not
gonna,
if
we
just
need
somebody
to
set
up
a
meeting
like
I
mean
or
just
like,
ask
the
relevant
people
to
say
you
know,
when
are
you
available
and
try
to
figure
something
out
like
I
can?
I
guess
I
can
do
that,
but
I
don't
want
to
figure.
I
don't
want
to
put
out
a
cattle
call
and
ask
who's
interested
and
I
don't
want
to
go
figure
out
and
find
out
who's
interesting.
B
So
if
we
just
like
have,
if
we
can
figure
out
the
list
of
people
here
and
now,
then
I
can
do
that.
But
I
mean
like
I
don't
know
if,
like
tobias
and
the
kids
are
both
commenting
a
lot,
but
I
don't
know
if
they're
interested
in,
like
participating
in
in
in
sort
of
like
trying
to
figure
out
what
what
the
criteria
would
be,
etc.
B
F
Sorry,
my
microphone
was
muted,
I'm
not
illustrating
that
when
are
we
going
to
discuss
that.
B
Okay
well,
well,
obviously,
you
know,
I
would
definitely
want
antoine
and
ruben
to
be
involved.
Nikita
has
has
said
he
wants
to
be
involved.
Tobias.
Are
you
interested
in
being
involved
in
this
or
just
you
know,
you'll
you'll
review
the.
B
He'd
like
to
join
okay,
I
see
okay,
all
right,
so
that's
four
and
maybe
I'll
email
tsc,
and
maybe,
if
anybody
well,
I
don't
know-
maybe
I'll,
put
something
in
this
track
after
all,
but
go
ahead,
make
it
make
it
my
problem
to
set
up
a
meeting.
I
don't
know
when
it'll
be,
but
just
go
ahead
and
put
put
that
as
an
action
item
in
the
minutes
and
I'll
figure
it
out.
We
can
move
on
at
this
point.
It's
getting
kind
of
late
sounds
good.
B
A
G
G
What's
the
trade
of
what
we
are
doing,
what
is
the
scope
of
this
migration
and
eventually,
when
it
came
to
porting
the
core
kpis,
we
started
suffering
from
performance
and
that's
the
that's
the
time
when
we
actually
start
looking
at
the
implications
and
the
real
need
for
primordials?
Is
it
where
we
are
at
this
point?
G
B
G
G
Should
we
validate
that,
and
if
that
validation
happens,
to
be
right,
we
should
go
in
the
same
direction
with
whatever
performance
is
coming
in
our
way
as
accepted
as
trade-off
between
the
validations
and
the
performance.
Otherwise,
if,
if
we
are
unable
to
validate
we,
we
could
stop
at
that
point.
Isn't
it
in
summary,
look
back
the
premises
in
which
primordials
were
introduced
and
if
those
premises
are
validated
to
be
correct
and
we
want
to
have
them,
we
should
continue
using
primordials.
G
H
Yeah,
just
it's
a
shame
that
targets
he's
not
in
the
meeting
today
because
I
think
he's
the
one
who
introduced
them.
So
he
could
tell
us,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
I
understand
why
the
original
intent
is
relevant
on
the
discussion,
because
even
if
we
are
following
another
intent
now,
that's
what
we
should
validate
that.
What
we
originally
thought.
I
think.
A
Yeah
I'd
agree,
like
the
you
know,
proposing
propose
me.
You
know
basically
saying
what
the
proposal
is
and
the
reasons
fought
for.
Why
makes
sense
to
me
versus
going
back
to
something
that
you
know
it
sounds
like
people
here
aren't
advocating,
but
in
that
discussion
whatever
that
proposal
is
that's
where
we
want
to
explain
the
rationale
right.
A
I
think
he
mentioned
that
it
was
michael's.
A
I
think
that
means
at
this
point.
Yes,
yeah.
We've
used
a
fair
amount
of
time.
We
have
a
next
step.
So
yes,
thank
you
for
that.
Okay,
let
us
move
to
the
next
issue,
which
is
the
node.js
membership
initiative
which
we
already
covered.
The
next
one
is
one
zero,
four
three
resulting
from
the
cpc
voting
member.
A
B
I'll
repeat
what
I
said
last
week,
which
is
that
if
no
one
else
wants
to
do
it
I'll
I'll,
take
it
on.
Probably,
let's
do,
let's
just
put
in
the
minutes
and
we'll
give
this
one
more
week
for
peop
for
anyone
else
to
step
up.
I
would
really
it
would
really
be
great
for
someone
who
wanted
an
opportunity
to
do
more
with
the
opengs
foundation
and
be
a
higher
profile,
et
cetera,
et
cetera,
but
nobody
wants
it
I'll
I'll.
Do
it.
J
As
I
said
a
few
times
back,
I
don't
have
the
availability
to
join
any
more
meetings
in
those
time
slots.
So
it's
you
know
I
make
us.
I
make
a
huge
stretch
to
join
this
meeting
in
this
time
slot
every
third
week.
So
it's
a
it's
it's
a
massive
stretch.
Already
I
have
like
it's
a.
I
don't
know
a
young
baby
type
of
the
problems.
I
know
a
few
of
you
know
the
no,
no,
the
feeling
so.
E
J
So
sorry
about,
I
would
I
would
I
if
nobody
can
take
it,
I
can
take
it,
but
with
no
expectation
for
me
to
join
in
meetings.
Essentially
I
can
do
the
email,
the
voting
part
of
the
job,
but
not
the
joining
meeting
parts
of
the
job,
because.
B
If
I
take
it
matteo,
I
will
I
will.
I
will
consult
with
you
on
anything
that
requires
consultation,
so
I
don't
have
to
eat.
K
A
Okay,
well,
that
sounds
good,
so
we'll
leave
it
we'll
leave
on
we'll
leave
on
one
more
week
leave
on
one
more
week
and
then
move
forward.
A
Okay,
so
the
next
one
is
number
1041
to
be
or
not
to
be
in
core.
I
think
that
one,
if
I
remember
correctly,
one
of
these
two
danielle
was
going
to
set
up
a
meeting.
So
let
me
just
figure
out
which
it
was
yeah.
Danielle
has
volunteered
to
set
up
the
following
meeting,
so
I
don't
think
we
necessarily
need
to
dive
in
that
here.
B
A
At
this
time,
okay
yeah-
I
I
would
say
my
call-
would
be
if
you're
interested
go
to
that
issue
which
I'll
put
in
the
issue
here
and
you
know,
do
your
thumbs
up
or
comments,
and
I
see
somebody
just
did
that
which
is
good
in
terms
of
indicating
that
you're
interested
in
participating,
because
you
may
have
been
waiting
to
hopefully
get
a
few
more
people.
A
Okay,
the
next
issue
was
1039
that
one
I
seem
to
remember.
We
basically
said
unless
there
were
objections
by
this
next
meeting,
so
I'm
going
to
open
it
up,
which
one
is
that
I
don't
have
the
minutes
in
front
of
me.
This
is
which
team
should
be
allowed
to
land
pull
request
node,
and
this
is
the
comment
that
we
put
in
last
time
last
week.
A
So
you
know
it
was
basically.
Last
week
we
had
nine
people
attendance,
nobody
had
objections
to
triagers
being
able
to
land
via
the
commit
queue.
We
should
just
adjust
and
try
it
if
there
are
any
issues
at
node.js.
You
know
if
you
have
any
concerns,
please
comment.
Otherwise
we
don't
have
objections.
People
will
make
the
next
meeting
the
assumptions
the
triages
will
end.
A
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
number
76,
which
is
next
10
mini
summit,
so
this
is
basically
informational.
The
next
10
group
is
getting
together
on
the
fifth.
The
details
are
in
that
issue
and
we're
gonna
do
a
four
hour
mini
summit.
Where
we're
going
to
go
through
an
agenda.
The
agenda
is
here
which
I'm
going
to
put.
A
Paste
that
here
it
didn't
format
so
nicely,
but
you
know
basically
we're
going
to
do
a
quick
review.
The
work
to
date,
20
minutes,
review
the
technical
priority
priorities,
so
we've
done
some
brainstorming.
We
had
a
fun
retro
board
or
easy
retro
board.
I
think
it's
called
now
where
we
got
collaborator
input
and
so
we're
gonna
go
over
that
and
brainstorm
we've
had
on
the
agenda.
So
that's
an
area
where
we
can
we've
got
something
to
start
with,
but
we'll
continue
the
discussion.
A
That's
one
we've
not
started
at
and
then
at
you
know,
using
the
last
hour,
we'll
want
to
sort
of
you
know,
work
out
initial
priority
list
and
next
steps,
so
just
on
the
list
here,
because
it
would
be
great
to
have
as
many
people
with
you
know
their
input
and
thoughts
in
terms
of
what
we
can,
what
we
should
be
doing
and
what's
key
to
be
doing
in
terms
of
technology
for
the
next
10
years.
A
E
D
I'm
a
little
surprised
that
this
james
is
doing
a
lot
of
work
with
you
know.
Implementing
the
web
apis
shouldn't
that
kind
of
fall
under
a
strategic
initiative.
J
No,
I
would
probably,
from
my
point
of
view,
I
don't
like
the.
I
don't
think
I
could
probably
drop
myself
from
that
stuff.
I
have
nothing
been.
I
haven't
been
working
on
major
promise
stuff.
Other
people
are
promoting
things,
so
I
should
probably
drop
to
be
honest.
It's
mostly
done
there
are
a
few
key
parts
like
dram
is
missing
like
a
few
key
pieces
that
are
missing.
J
To
be
honest,
I
don't
see
much
need
for
for
them
the
biggest
one
that
modern
everybody
is
needing
is
the
is
the
hdp
client
which
is
being
talked
in
other
venues.
So
essentially
that
is
the
major
one
that
everybody
is
asking
for.
So
that's
it.
A
J
Or
should
we
just
move
it
to
completed,
we
could
move
to
the
completed
list.
Well,
I
would
move
it
to
either
cities
another
champion
or
it's.
Somebody
else
wants
to
take
it
and
and
bring
it
to
completion
if
there
is
a
completion
step
here
I
to
be
honest
on
the
http
front:
it's
I
think
they.
I
don't
know.
If
those
were
you
antoine,
that
did
the
latest
one
on
redline.
J
It's
still
open
yeah,
so
maybe,
if
antoine
wants
to
to
keep
to
keep
the
torch,
I
will
be
very
happy
like
there
is
a
lot
of
those
modules,
but
I
don't
even
know
if
the
how
much
there
is
a
need
for
those
apis.
To
be
honest,
so
my
attention
is
almost
so
focused
on
the
http
side
of
things
these
days,
so
I
don't
have
like
the
time
to
pursue
that
completing
it.
So
maybe,
if
somebody
else
volunteers,
if
not,
we
can
remove.
H
J
J
H
I'll
put
it
to
completion
but
yeah.
I
can
move
forward
with
it
for
sure.
F
H
Okay,
so
yeah
volunteering.
B
A
Okay,
okay,
so
the
next
one
is.
A
That's
the
only
one
we
have
somebody
today
so
that
basically
takes
us
to
the
end
of
the
list
that
we'll
go
through
and
we
only
have
a
few
minutes
left.
Is
there
anything
else
we
should
talk
about
before
we
close
out.