►
Description
A
D
D
Okay,
I
guess
no
announcements
this
week.
The
next
thing
on
the
regular
agenda
is
a
working
group
update,
I
volunteered,
the
benchmarking
workgroup
and
I'm
gonna.
Give
that
update
I
guess
just
you
know
to
give
a
short
outline
of
the
way
that
the
you
know
what
the
benchmarking
workers
is
working
on.
The
the
general
plan
of
attack
is
to
define
the
key
use
cases
and
key
attributes
of
nodejs
and
then
try
to
fill
in
benchmarks,
which
I'll
cover
those
use.
Cases
run
those
regularly,
and
you
know
to
be
able
to
check
if
we're.
D
If
we
have
any
regressions-
and
you
know
the
process
that
we're
working
through
is
you
know,
we've
documented,
though
an
initial
set
of
both
the
use
cases
and
the
the
attributes
and
we've
added
some
benchmarks.
The
ones
that
are
run
nightly
are
at
benchmarking,
nodejs
org.
So
you
can
go.
Take
a
look.
Those
run
every
day
and
an
extra
data
point
is
added
to
the
to
the
the
benchmark
charts.
D
They
have
been
useful
in
terms
of
you
know.
For
example,
when
we
had
the
you
know
we
had
when
we
had
the
security
issue
where
we
had
to
turn
off
snapshots.
It
clearly
showed
that
startup
got
longer,
and
you
know
also
helped
us
identify
that
we
hadn't
quite
gotten
fix
his
back
into
some
of
the
LTS
streams
when
we
thought
we
had,
and
you
know
to
catch
that
and
fix
that
up,
which
is
good.
D
You
know
some
more
more
recent
work
as
long
the
lines
to
add
in
additional
benchmarks,
so
Intel
and
unum
powered
particular
have
been
working
to
add
the
no
DC
EIS
benchmarks,
that's
a
whole
system,
benchmark
that
they
put
together
and
is
intended
to
test.
You
know
something
along
the
lines
of
what
acne
err
does
in
terms
of
the
whole
system
benchmark,
but
is
intended
to
be
more
general
so
that
they
can,
you
know,
cover
other
use
cases
and
so
forth.
D
So
in
the
last
few
weeks
you
know
months,
we've
been
working,
no
DCIS
and
you
can
see
that
the
benchmark
data
is
now
flowing
and
being
generated
nightly.
That
there's
still
are
as
few
tweaks
being
made
to
the
scripts.
The
other
thing
that's
being
worked
on
is
a
tooling
benchmark,
so
Benedict
from
Google
has
volunteered
to
put
that
together
and
the
intention
is
to
cover
the
use
case.
D
D
Yeah,
one
of
the
other
things
that's
being
worked
on
is
taking
advantage
of
the
new
machines
that
Intel
donated
to
be
able
to
run
the
core
node
benchmarks,
which
can
take
quite
a
long
time
to
run
and
that
script
as
being
tested
out
we're
just
looking
for
a
little
bit
more
feedback
and
then
we'll
be
filling
out
to
the
broader
or
collaborator
community.
To
say
you
know,
here's
another
tool
that
you
can
use
in
terms
of
running
those
you
know.
D
D
E
D
A
D
D
A
D
And
when
you
say
benchmarks
the
core
benchmarks,
to
be
honest,
the
the
benchmarking
workgroup
hasn't
actually
done
that
much
with
those
because
they're
they
generate
so
much
data.
It's
it's
not
consumable
in
terms
of
something
to
say
you
know
we
brand
them
and
we're
good
or
bad
it.
It
really
I
think
they're
used
mostly
in
while
we're
doing
this
particular
change.
Let's
look
at
this
subset
of
them
or
something
like
that.
I
guess
what
I'd
ask
is.
If
you
have
particular
requests,
you
know
open
issues
and
describe
whether.
D
Know
describe
the
ASP
there
and
you
know
we
can
see
if
that's
actually
something
that
the
benchmarking
workgroup
is.
You
know,
impinges
on
what
we've
already
been
looking
at.
If
there's
a
volunteer
or
I
know,
there's
some
people
who
don't
participate
in
the
benchmarking
working
group,
who
are
quite
active
with
the
regular
benchmarks,
and
you
know
maybe
they'll
even
volunteer.
D
No:
okay:
let's
move
on
to
the
next
part,
which
is
the
open
issues
so
the
first
one
on
the
list
is
number
873,
which
is
the
temperature
needed
on
in
blue
to
1604
and
Fedora
23.
I
think
that
one
is
just
wrong
because
we
discussed
it
last
time
and
probably
it
just
needs
to
have
TSC
agenda
removed.
Is
that
I
guess
miles
you've
added
it.
So
is
that
your
recollection,
as
well
or
yeah,.
A
G
H
D
D
A
This
is
a
pretty
interesting
one
for
people
who
haven't
been
following
it.
Openssl
is
something
that
we
need
to
make
some
decisions
on
fairly
quickly.
Actually,
so
one
point
zero
point:
two
is
end
of
life.
End
of
2019.
Someone
please
correct
me
if
I
have
my
dates
wrong,
but
we
actually
ended
up
having
to
shorten
VLTs
life
cycle
of
eight
by
three
months
or
four
months
to
actually
accommodate
that
right
now.
One
point
one
point:
zero
is
the
latest
version
of
OpenSSL.
A
It
does
not
yet
have
an
LTS
any
sort
of
idea
of
how
long
support
will
be,
and
another
big
issue
is.
There
is
no
tips
module
right
now
on
one
point
one
we
have
about.
You
know
we're
about
to
cut
version.
Nine
we've
got
about
six
months
until
we
cut
version
10
and
we
need
to
have
a
solid
openness
to
sell
story,
or
at
least
that's
the
sell
story
by
the
time
the
ten
is
cut,
because
you
know
anything
they
make
the
assembler
major
change.
A
So
I
just
wanted
to
bring
this
to
the
attention
of
everyone.
This
work
right
here,
I
think,
is
really
important
by
David
Ben
from
the
boring
SSL
team.
Some
changes
to
get
our
SSL
implementation
internally
to
be
able
to
support
both
1.1
and
1.0.
But
this
is
just
you
know,
a
stepping
stone.
We,
as
a
group
I,
think
probably
needs
to
test
either
like
a
crypto
team
or
some
sort
of
working
group
to
handle
this,
because
the
clock
is
ticking
on
having
a
solution
for
this.
A
F
A
A
D
D
D
D
A
Think
the
best
bet
here
and
I
can
start
spinning.
This
up
is
like
we
need
to.
We
need
to
make
a
group
of
individuals
who
can
focus
specifically
on
this
problem
and
offer
a
solution
to
the
TSC
I'd
be
willing
to
help
head
that.
Is
there
anyone
else
from
the
TSC
who
would
be
willing
to
support
and
want
to
be
involved.
D
E
D
A
Their
support,
the
challenge,
their
first
name
is
more
sense
to
break
it
into
another
conversation,
but
OpenSSL
hasn't
even
design.
Writing
a
text
module
and
as
far
as
when
I
did
research
across
other
alternatives.
The
only
other
alternative
that
had
a
Phipps
module
is
boring
as
a
cell
and
they
explicitly
state
that
they
do
not
have
a
support
contract
for
external
vendors
in
their
readme.
A
So
it's
not
doesn't
sound
like
the
kind
of
thing
that
we
can
be
relying
on
and
I
think
that
maybe
there's
some
bigger
questions
that
we
should
have
with
some
people
in
the
crypto
industry
to
see
like
what
is
the
long-term
support
for
hips.
Even
looking
like,
because
I've
heard
some
sentiment
that
some
people
may
not
even
want
to
see
ongoing
support
for
pips
at
all.
E
E
E
A
A
E
Right
and
that's
what
we
need
to
look
at,
so
it
leads
it
basically
in
a
very
short
period
of
time.
We
need
to
look
at
what
is
the
feature
of
pips
and
open
us
in
the
open
up,
open
SSL
and
what
we
can
continue
to
to
support
and
then
make
a
decision
on
doing
a
duck's
only
deprecation
first
and
nine
after
it
goes
after
has
already
been
released.
As
you
know,
9o
is
going
out
next
Tuesday.
E
G
D
J
J
Those
tracks
will
need
it
so
that
you
know
we
had
to
loosen
those
tracks
innate
okay,
because
it
was
not
possible
to
actually
like
ship
it.
We
broke
the
wall
of
the
happy
Co
system
because
of
this
we
had
to
rush
release.
I,
don't
know
at
some
point
in
in
July
or
something
so
the
detector
aware
make
loose.
Now
the
question
is
it's
about
making
those
checks.
J
So,
however,
as
in
cooks,
it's
you
know,
it's
an
experimental
feature.
So,
on
the
other
side
we
want.
We
want
to
be
able
to
diagnose
those
situations.
Okay
and
if
those
arises,
we
want
to
have
them,
and
we
want
to
report
those
issues.
Okay,
we
want
user
to
say
hey
in
my
note
crashes
and
they
post
us
an
issue.
Otherwise,
if
it
note
doesn't
crash,
if
it
does,
if
we
don't
print
out
anything,
of
course,
they
will
not
report
it
and
we'll
never
fix
the
bug.
Okay,
we
need
massive
test
base.
J
J
This
is
the
made
them.
This
is
the
first
question
and
we
there
is
a
conflict
of
interest
of
being
not
being
stable
and
asking
who
being
stable
at
this
point.
So
what's
the
priority
and
can
should
should
we
treat
mastery
is
differently
in
terms
of
stability.
Those
are
the
questions.
Are
part
of
these
issues
that
I'm
posting
here
is
the
chart.
So
it's
at
the
end
of
is
not
the
last
comment,
but
is
close
to
the
bottom
of
the
issue.
E
D
J
D
E
D
K
E
J
Both
you
Anna
and
Trevor.
There
is
a
comment
saying
you
know:
please
say
if
you
are
objecting
or
not,
and
you
said
that
you
are
not
up
against
those
changes,
but
Trevor
didn't
engage
okay,
so
you
know
we
are
discussing
this
now
formally,
we
probably
can
lend
it
I
am
without
calling
for
a
vote.
But
probably
if
you
know
it
will
be
good.
If
you
are
in
agreement
that.
D
For
a
tat
land
so
that
you
know
there's
less
impact
potentially
to
eat,
but
then
in
master
we
go
back.
The
other
way
you
know
basically
have
them
on
by
I,
have
them
on
all
the
time
in
master
and
I.
Guess
potentially
that
in
nine,
but
in
eight
have
them
turned
off
so
that
I
guess
you
know
the
feeling
is
that
that
will
reduces
the
risk
for
the
alts
users
to
not
have
them
innate.
At
this
point,.
E
D
J
H
Rules
allow
you
to
say
you
know,
drop
a
comment
in
there
saying
you
know
you
know
asking
if
it's
if
it's
our
you
know,
if
it's
a
blocking
objection
or
not,
and
if
you
don't
get
an
answer,
you
can
suit.
You
know
and
up
a
look
at
the
other.
Look
the
rule
changes
recent
there
we've
set
like
X
number
of
days
no
response.
You
can
just
assume
it's
not
blocking
yeah.
B
B
H
H
E
E
L
K
L
E
Yes,
yeah
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
we've
seen
anything,
that's
not
searchable!
Well,
so
I'll
put
it
that
way.
We
haven't
seen
anything
yet
it's
not
fixable
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
is
give
it
time
to
stabilize
and
then
once
we're
sure
it's
stable
still
give
it
a
little
bit
of
time
after
that,
before
we
pull
that
experiment,
olive
oil.
F
A
E
F
E
F
E
E
The
the
issue
here
is
that
there
is
an
existing
HP,
two
module
out
on
out
of
me
under
user
land.
That
author
has
eagerly
agreed
to
to
deprecate
their
module
and
has
already
done
so
for
anybody
using
nine
and
higher
and
said
that
they
will
do
so.
Also
for
anybody
using
the
eight
point,
X
good
thing
to
be
eight
point,
eight
or
higher.
If
we
landed
this
and
it
and
he
has
already
been
working
towards
getting
his
users
to
migrate.
Thank
you
know.
E
I'm
talking
to
them
about
migrating
over,
for
the
users
that
aren't
this
PR,
specifically
on
eight
X
introduces
an
environment
variable
node,
no
HP
to
that
can
be
used
to
turn
off
the
HP
to
so
it
would
be
on
by
default.
Then
you
would
set
this
environment
variable
to
turn
it
back
off.
Just
in
case
this
change
break.
You.
A
I'm,
a
huge
plus
one
on
this,
a
huge
benefit
is
having
native
HTTP
support,
means
no
more
compiling
anything
for
HTTP
2,
which
offers
like
native
out-of-the-box
support.
It
will
help
with
things
such
as
G
RPC.
It
will
help
with
adoption
across
many
environments.
I
think
that
this
is
a
win
and
I
think
that
the
few
edge
cases
where
people's
userland
stuff
is
going
to
be
affected.
The
deprecation
will
give
them
a
clear
heads
up
as
to
what
is
going
on
and
how
to
how
to
mitigate
are.
B
E
A
It
is,
in
my
opinion,
the
ship
has
already
sailed
on
that
we're
two
weeks
away
from
LTS.
Yes,
we
want
to
have
a
ready
so
next
week,
I
don't
see
a
path
where
we
can
do
that
in
a
timely
fashion.
Now,
well,
we
can
decide
to
do
which
I,
don't
think
is
the
best
idea
is
we
could
consider
changing
the
flag
to
December
my
reminder
than
a
future
8
December
minor
release,
but
to
me
that
makes
me
a
little
uncomfortable
and
rather
have
us
land
this
before
LTS.
J
J
A
A
B
C
F
H
H
Because
of
the
deprecation
warning.
If
that
is
the
broad
sense
of
the
TSC,
we
should
probably
make
that
clear.
I
still
think
it's
okay
for
people
to
raise
this
every
six
months
with
every
release,
because
the
membership
on
the
TSE
changes
facts
on
the
ground
change,
maybe
we'll
all
change
our
minds.
H
But
evidence
says
that
he
would
have
raised
his
hands
that
six
people
on
the
TSE
who
believe
that
there's
no
reason
to
deprecated
buffer
constructor,
so
I
kind
of
be
interested
in
hearing
from
people
whose
opinions
we
don't
know
like
I'm
sure
that
Nikita
believes
that
we
should
probably
deprecated
buffer
constructor.
At
some
point.
J
That
is
one
point
I
want
to
make
too.
But
one
thing
to
my
statement
at
non-interactive,
because
that
was
a
straw
poll
and
that
was
not
I
am
open
to
consider
to
consider
the
duplication
of
the
baffle
constructor
after
four
goes,
a
cup
one
or
two
releases
after
four
goes
out
of
maintenance.
So
if
the
downloads
for
four
goes
down
its,
it's
probably
safe
to
duplicate.
J
H
Actual
answer
so
so
I
don't
think
we're
gonna
come
to
a
resolution
on
this
here.
He
right
now,
but
I'll
take
the
action
item.
If
it's
okay
with
everybody
else,
I
know,
we
have
a
lot
of
both
instantly
agenda.
I'll.
Take
the
action
item
to
sort
of
like
you
allow
people
individually
to
figure
out
where
we
stand
collectively
on
this.
H
B
B
E
E
E
D
E
L
E
J
J
Objection
from
I
there
is
a
massive
so
probably
understand,
but
I
will
ask
everybody
to
take
a
look
very
quickly.
To
be
frank,
both
daga
daga
from
Express-
and
they
run
from
happy,
are
on
board
with
this.
With
this
change,
so
I
think
it's
it's
something
safe
to
do,
but
it
needs
to
be
done
in.
We
need
to
make
a
decision
now,
if
you
want
it
in
that,
that's
the
only
way
it's.
E
J
E
D
A
D
H
G
D
D
E
E
E
So
I
guess
the
idea
would
be
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts
or
objections
on
that
to
bring
that
to
the
github
thread,
and
so
we
can
discuss
it.
But
let's
make
sure
it's
on
the
agenda
next
week.
So
we
can
actually
talk
about
it
and,
let's
put
it
earlier
on
earlier
on
in
the
agenda,
so
we
can
make
sure
we
get
to.
E
D
A
I'd
like
to
add
one
thing
really
quickly
to
it,
just
based
on
like
some
of
the
bits
that
I
put
in
the
thread
and
I've
kind
of
I
kind
of
have
like
mixed
feelings
on
it.
So
so
one
hand
I
think
that
it's
important
that
everyone
on
the
TSC
is
engaged
in
our
governance,
but
I
also
recognize
the
smaller
groups
can
accomplish
more
in
a
quicker
period
of
time,
especially
the
smaller
group
uses
to
engage
in
person
and
the
TSE
can
then
iterate
on
those
findings
and
suggestions.
M
M
So
I
think
I
have
to
apologize
up
front
for
my
use
of
the
working
group
terminology.
I
learned
as
I
was
posting
issues
over
the
last
week
that
working
groups
have
a
very
specific
meaning
for
our
collaborators,
and
you
know
that
that
took
a
bit
of
parsing
to
gain
understanding
there.
So
you
know
the
determination
of
whether
a
governance
focused
working
group
exists
beyond
the
current
need
to
evaluate-
and
you
know,
proposed
potential
changes
to
governance.
I
think
is,
you
know
a
secondary
consideration.
M
You
know
suggestion
of
you
know
this
is
a
matter.
That's
going
to
take
a
lot
of
effort
and
thought,
and,
interestingly,
this
meeting
is
a
great
example
of
you
know
how,
in
the
face
of
all
of
the
the
technical
issues
that
we
have
to
deal
with,
that
are
pressing.
You
know
these
sorts
of
longer-term
issues
can
fall
by
the
wayside.
M
So
you
know
that's
why
a
proposal
of
you
know
having
a
smaller
committee,
and
you
know,
I-
do
think
it's
important
to
to
work
to
do
some
of
the
fit
up
and
and
enablement
upfront,
so
that
the
folks
that
are
engaging
here,
you
know
feel
like
that.
You
know
what
maybe
months
of
effort
are
going
to
be
received,
appreciated
and
not
have
to
go
through.
You
know
just
a
legitimacy
test
when
up
suppose
it
comes
to
the
the
TSE.
E
M
D
D
I
can
see
so
I
could
see
something
where
you
know.
We
write
a
scope
that
says
here's
the
scope
of
what
the
you
know.
The
efforts
gonna
be
here,
the
people
that
are
involved
and
then
you
could
have
a
vote
say
yes,
we're
comfortable
with
that
proceeding.
Is
that,
along
the
lines
of
what
you
were
thinking,
yeah.
A
I
can
make
an
alternate
proposal.
One
thing
that
was
discussed
at
the
collaborator
summit
was
having
a
TSE
meeting
where
we
brought
in
TSE
members
in
person
to
work
on
this
stuff.
I
know
in
conversations
with
like
Ally,
for
example,
all
of
us
that
you
know
like
in
a
room.
At
the
same
time,
I
felt
like
we
got
a
lot
done,
but
I
feel
like
it
was
cut
short
if
we
could
even
have
two
or
three
days
in
the
same
room.
A
So
if
we
could
look
into
making
an
official
meeting
for
the
TSE
specifically
to
deal
with
these
governance
things,
it
can
be
optional,
but
that
essentially
the
group
who
shows
up
would
be
the
group
that
would
come
up
with
the
suggestions.
It
was
originally
floated
the
open
source,
Leadership
Summit,
being
run
by
the
LF,
would
be
a
good
place
to
do.
This.
A
A
A
little
beard,
it's
March
6
to
March
8
so
and
we
can
co-locate
this
as
well.
If
we
want
like,
if
people
want
to
do
this
in
New,
York
I
am
more
than
happy
to
get
a
space
in
the
New
York
office,
I'm,
pretty
sure
that
maybe
Franzi
could
help
with
getting
space
in
the
Munich
office
and
its
really
really
easy
to
co-locate
and
collaborate
between
multiple
offices.
A
So
if
we
set
up
something
in
the
Munich
office
and
something
in
the
New
York
office,
that
gives
us
in
North
America
and
a
European
place,
and
we
can
maybe
do
it
on
slightly
shorter
notice.
But
I
would
like
to
I
would
like
us
to
try
to
spread
work,
doing
that,
and
that
seems
like
a
good
approach
to
me.
E
M
L
L
A
D
K
D
A
Yeah,
so
so
it
seems
like
this
is
to
me
seems
like
something
that
we
need
to
vote
on
doesn't
appear
like
anything
like.
It
doesn't
appear
that
we
have
consensus
in
in
the
in
the
issue
and
I
think
it's
a
similar
I
think
the
the
feeling
that
rich
has.
There
is
somewhat
similar
to
how
I
feel
about
the
governance
working
group
that
it
treats
it
treats
the
symptom,
but
not
the
problem,
which
is
engagement
and
so
I
mean
I'm.
A
I
have
real
problems
about
like
what
it
creates,
as
you
know,
like
a
prior
art
on
that
at
the
very
least,
I
think
that
we
have
enough
activity
right
now.
That,
like
excuse
me
that
we
should
be
able
to
reach
majority
votes
fairly
quickly,
especially
if
people
abstain
and
the
signal-to-noise
thing
can
can
be
held
by
like
individually
pinging
people
and
people
taking
charge
of
issues
and
I'm
concerned
about
the
long-term
effect
of
that.
Forcing
of
stab
stains.
H
A
G
D
We
do
the
we
do
the
announcements
so
that
people
who
are
going
to
need
to
incorporate
that
that
fix,
can
be
ready
and
prepared
to.
You
know,
know
that
next
Tuesday
they're
going
to
have
to
scramble
to
you
know,
incorporate
it
in
and
apply
the
new
version
and,
in
fact,
I
think
on
one
of
the
issues
where
we're
discussing
things
in
the
security
working
group.
Unless
I
misinterpreted
people
were
asking
specifically
for
that.
B
B
But
Jeremiah
I
want
to
take
the
stream
down.
Okay
sounds
good
thanks.
Everyone
for
watching
and
I
will
see
you
what
is
it
next
week
or
whatever
I
think
I,
don't
know
what
the
timeslot
is.
There's
a
calendar
for
this
yep
and
we're
already
over
time
so
find
the
calendar,
I
guess
or
look
at
just
look
for
the
issues
on
no
DST.