►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/110
* Rod Vagg - https://github.com/rvagg (TSC)
* Alexis Campailla - https://github.com/orangemocha (TSC)
* Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
* Michael Dawson - https://github.com/mhdawson (TSC)
* Bryan Hughes - https://github.com/nebrius (TSC)
A
A
I've
got
them
in
that,
unlike
your
rights,
10
apiece
they're
reviewing
last
meetings.
It's
before
stand
up.
Okay,
that's
good,
because
then
I
got
a
chance
to
think
about
what
I've
done.
That's
relevant
for
setup.
Okay,
reviewing
last
meeting
OS
X
buildbot
call
to
action.
So
we
we
were
talking
about
the
needful,
newer,
OS,
X
machines.
A
C
Nothing
really
big,
but
Elijah
man's.
We
changed
the
day
that
the
inclusive
the
group
me
Tom,
just
to
better
accommodate
people
scheduled
at
no
comp
had
ran
two
sessions
on
the
new
facilitation
framework.
I
got
some
good
feedback.
People
seem
pretty
positive
on
it,
but
now
worse,
a
few
questions
and
clarifications
they
had
and
couple
other
good
ideas
too.
So
I
think
that
was
a
useful,
but
it's
not
it.
For
me.
A
A
The
repo
takes
into
takes
some
of
the
the
purpose
of
the
roadmap
repo
had
previously,
but
it's
less
about
far
future
more
about
things
that
we
need
to
be
concerned
about,
and
we
need
to
be
thinking
about
now.
So
there's
some
interesting
discussions
going
on
in
that
repo.
That
sort
of
relevant
to
the
the
near
future
of
node
and
I
think
that
that
would
be
a
good
place
for
raising
things
before
they
jump
on
us.
I'm
been
talking
tc39
and
modules
and
trying
to
work
on
improving
that
relationship
with
tc39.
A
So
so
people
that
use
electron
or
the
develop
for
electron
are
developing
node,
and
so
how
do
we
as
a
TST
start
to
consider
that,
as
within
our
boundary
of
concerns
and
and
then,
how
do
we
interface
with
that
project
and
the
users
of
that
project,
and
also,
if
part
of
our
mission
is
to
expand
a
growth,
add
expand
the
use
of
node?
Does
it
mean
also
hoping
to
expand
the
electron
user
base
there
for
expanding
the
use
of
electron
and
mode?
So
that's
just
something
to
think
about.
A
A
So
my
idea
for
regular
well
applauding
was
that
we
would
identify
the
active
and
I
guess
significant
working
groups
and
activity
groups
around
the
organization
and
ask
them
to
put
together
a
report
in
a
certain
frequency
and
to
provide
to
the
tsc,
and
then
we
would
put
out
a
rolled-up
report
that
contains
all
the
contents
of
that.
So
we
need
to
I,
guess
see
if
that
we
think
that's
a
good
idea
and
then
talk
about
frequency
and
which
working
groups
we
might
put
in
that
list.
A
It
is
except
I.
Imagine
mr.
beuliss
fricker,
because
it's
not
going
to
be
easy.
It's
not
going
to
be
so
it's
going
to
be
a
little
bit
of
a
burden
on
the
working
groups
to
get
them
to
report
and
I
suspect.
Also,
it's
going
to
be
a
burden
on
us
to
to
heard
cats.
So
it's
going
to
be
a
lot
less
frequent
and
it's
going
to
be
getting
those
groups
themselves
to
report
the
things
that
they
think
are
significant.
E
E
C
B
C
A
So
maybe
what
we
should
do
is
come
up
with
a
list
of
working
groups
that
we
need
that
we
that
we
need
to
include
and
then
open
it
up
for
any
other
group,
including
language
groups,
that
want
a
report,
but
we
don't
have
to
go
chasing
up
so
have
a
call
corset
that
we
really
want
reports
from
and
then
we'll
go
chase
them
up
and
then
allow
anyone
else
outside
of
that
to
report.
If
they
have
anything
so
does
anyone
want
to
start
with
a
list
while
I
am
just
jot?
E
C
D
A
I'm
just
thinking
that
which
one
of
the
cool
ones
that
we
we
absolutely
want
to
include
and
that
we
will
chase
up.
So
if,
if,
for
example,
we
put
out
a
call
and
say
okay,
it's
time
to
give
your
roller
report
and
nobody
responds
who
are
we
going
to
go
and
chase
to
get
a
report
from?
That's.
That's
that's
the
list
I
want
to
make
now,
but
but
we
give
everyone
everyone
a
chance
to
report
yeah.
B
A
E
B
D
E
A
D
A
Anything
that's
currently
actively
yeah
I,
because
I've
tried
to
do
this
before
we
go
through
the
repo
and
find
out
what's
what's
interesting
and
relevant
to
people,
and
it's
actually
really
hard
to
draw
the
line,
because
there's
so
much
that
happens.
That
is
just
trivia
but
there's
other
things
that
almost
reached
a
boundary.
Where
would
be
obviously
be
interesting
to
users,
but
finding
what
that
boundary
is
is
tricky.
E
C
Maybe
you
would
make
sense
to
have
like
maybe
a
weekly
thing.
That's
pretty
light
weights
that
maybe
only
include
like
the
CTC
in
the
tsc
or
like
two
or
three
groups,
but
then
monthly
is
that
we
also
have
like
all
the
working
groups,
and
things
like
that
you
know,
do
a
much
bigger,
maybe
something
like
that
might
help.
A
A
C
A
The
meetings
every
two
weeks
that
we
have
for
the
chassis
may
be
part
of
our
part
of
our
meeting
schedule.
Things
should
be
finalizing
a
report
to
put
out,
and
then
we
put
that
out,
maybe
on
medium
or
something
like
that,
and
then
that
includes
CTC
and
TSE.
So
what
have
we
worked
on
this
week
as
at
ESC?
And
what
has
the
CTC
reported
to
us
as
things
that
have
been
going
on.
A
C
E
D
A
A
A
So
projects
so
we
have
Jeremiah,
you
put
readable
stream
down
there.
I
left
streams
out
of
that.
Well,
we
left
streams
out
of
that
list
of
working
groups
and
I.
The
reason
I
did
that
is
simply
because
they
don't
have
that
much
autonomous
activity
for
readable
stream.
What
would
we
just
be
looking
for
releases?
Is
that
what
we're
looking
for
proton
projects?
What
do
you
imagine
coming
out
of
the
project
reports.
B
Like
I,
don't
really
know,
I
just
I
feel
that
least
as
active
is
like
these
other
groups
that
make
none,
sometimes
non-technical,
sometimes
technical
decisions
that
are
mostly
knocks,
not
code,
right,
I,
guess
the
belt
working
group.
It
doesn't
want
kodaline
things
and
stuff
too.
We
made
these
group.
These
projects,
like
I'll,
do
tangible
things.
Like
always,
it
seems
silly
not
to
to
get
some
report
of.
What's
going
on.
There
I
mean
readable
stream,
mostly
mirrors
core
streams
or
attempts
to
these
days.
It.
A
A
A
B
A
No
chip
is
going
to
be
interesting
because
I
don't
know
if
anyone's
noticed,
but
we're
struggling
to
find
really
somebody
that's
what
wants
to
own
it.
A
lot
of
the
activity
of
actually
putting
committing
was
done
by
Ben,
but
I.
Don't
I,
don't
feel
like
I
feel
have
been
feels
that
he's
a
he
wants
to
earn
that
project,
and
so
a
lot
of
issues
go
unhandled.
A
A
Here's
the
output
and
the
output
took
nothing
it's
so
it's
so
hard
to
interact
with
people
that
report
on
that.
Maybe
this
is
a
good
way
to
highlight
some
of
that
and
ask
for
contributors.
So
let's
just
quickly
brainstorm
what
we
would
ask
for
from
these
groups
when
we
go
out
saying
we
need
your
report.
This
is
what
we
need
from
you.
D
D
A
E
C
And
I
think
both
times
would
work
better
for
certain
groups
than
others.
So
I
think
we
should
I
think
a
pony
best
just
to
try
one
and
see
how
it
works.
Maybe
maybe
start
quarterly.
What
kind
of
all
we
get
these
processes
in
place
and
then
we
can
maybe
revisit
and
look
at
doing
more
often,
it
feels
like
there's
a
kind
of
an
information
overkill
in
these
yeah.
C
E
B
A
No
but
there's
also
problem,
which
is,
if
you
do,
if
you
don't,
do
it
frequently
enough,
then
figuring
out,
what's
going
on
in
between
that
time,
it's
going
to
be
more
difficult,
because
the
spare
time
for
memory
is
going
to
be
tricky
and
then
searching
through
github
for
what's
happened
is
going
to
be
tricky,
it's
yeah,
so
that
there
is
a
balance
there,
which
is.
We
can't
leave
it
too
long,
but
we
can't
do
it
too
frequently,
but
I
think
as
Brian
said,
let's
try
something
and
see
how
go
and
see
how
it
works.
You.
E
A
Another
option
here
is
to
make
an
opt-in
so,
instead
of
us
chasing
them
up
just
say:
look
this
is
going
to
go
out
with
this
frequency.
If
you
get
something
in
great,
if
not
then
maybe
next
time
and
and
then
we
could
do
something
more
frequency
monthly
and
let
does
let
workgroups
decide
how
frequently
they
report
the
risk
there
is.
If,
if
we're
not
chasing
down
is
a
list
of
working
groups,
we
want
reports
from
then
they
may
end
up
just
fall
off
at
least
completely,
but.
E
A
A
Okay,
next
number
108,
which
is
adding
Bryan
as
a
member
of
TSE,
so
I'm
just
going
to
restate
what
I
said
in
there,
which
is
also
an
apology
to
Bryant
for
letting
this
linger.
So
the
reason
why
I've
thinking
to
hold
off
on
this
is
simply
because
we
have
so
much
in
flux
about
the
existence
of
this
group.
What
is
what
are
we
doing?
What
are
we
responsible
for?
How
do
we
overlap
with
the
CTC?
A
One
of
the
reasons
the
tsc
was
set
up
was
part
of
this
idea
that
we
would
expand
in
our
scope,
and
we
would
have
all
these
other
projects
going
on
and
we
would
be
much
more
sitting
above
that
and
and
helping
coordinate,
helping
facilitate
that
activity.
But
we've
since
come
back
to
this
idea
that
we
are
focused
on
the
core
and
the
things
directly
surrounding
it
and
that
our
boundaries
are
a
lot
more
limited
than
was
originally
conceived
of
so
I
was
keen
for
us
to
figure
out
exactly
what
that
was
before.
A
So
that's
that's
why
I
was
keen
to
hold
off
but
actually
don't
see
that
being
resolved
very
easily
in
the
in
the
near
term
anyway,
so
we
have
Brian
who's.
We
was
noted
by
the
University
of
any
group.
We
do
ask
for
representatives
to
sit
on
the
tsc,
and
so
brian
has
been
here
as
a
a
half
way.
Member,
not
actually
a
full
member,
but
almost
a
defect.
Remember
so
I
I
as
I
say
in
that
issue.
I
think.
A
Let's
move
forward
with
this,
because
brands
make
very
valuable
I
think
he
will
continue
to
be
very
valuable
for
what
we
do
and
it's
it's
actually
just
great
to
have
people
that
are
interested
in
this
kind
of
work.
So
I'm
came
to
move
forward.
Unfortunately,
we
don't
have
a
quorum,
but
what
we
can
do
is
is
do
a
vote
of
TSE
members
on
here,
which
is
the
there's
only
three
of
us.
Unfortunately,
Michael
Dawson,
you
don't
count
as
a
tier
see.
Member
under
the
original
membership
list,
so
myself,
Jeremiah
and
Alexis.
A
B
B
Just
I
think
that
we
brought
this
up
at
the
inquisitive
II
working
group
to
it
wasn't
really
resolved
so
like
once
like
some
arbitrary
period
of
time,
as
has
passed
like
for
the
nomination
from
the
working
group
should
be
like
ask
them
to
reconsider,
or
is
this
like
a
permanent
thing
until
the
group
light
decides
okay
we'd
like
someone
else
in
or
they
resign
or
like?
How
do
we
do
with
that?.
A
So
if,
if
he
clearly
wants
to
swap
out
their
member,
then
like
we
can
deal
with
that,
but
probably
best
if
we
did
the
let
Brian
resign
and
then
vote
somebody
else
on
rather
than
having
your
automatic
seat,
because
that
fixes
in
place
more
of
the
the
more
process
and
official
stuff
we
build
around
this
group,
the
more
difficult
it
might
be
to
unpack
that
if
we
need
to
change
it.
That's
that's
my
concern
me
right.
B
A
Because
when
we
split
the
TSE
off,
Michael,
wasn't
part
of
the
ctc
at
that.
Well,
the
orig
that
TC
TC
at
that
time,
because
our
IBM
and
stronger
but
merged-
and
they
had
to
kick
the
members
out
of
the
tier
suit,
the
titty
as
it
was,
and
so
when
we
split
it
off,
the
membership
list
was
from
that
time.
So
there's
some
new
members
on
the
CTC
that
are
not
part
of
the
TSE
simply
because
we've
left
it
fixed
and
we
haven't
automatically
brought
him
in
to
make
sense.
Yes,.
A
Well,
that's
another
interesting
point,
because
if
we
do
that,
then-
and
we
start
trimming
members,
so
if
we,
if
we
ask
everyone
that
doesn't
show
up
here
to
resign,
so
then
people
like
well
actually
don't
we
all
know
the
names
people
that
don't
shop
us
in
the
resign
and
we
have
the
company
restriction
thing.
Then
we're
probably
going
to
automatically
run
into
trouble
with
myself
and
Jeremiah
and
then
I.
Imagine
that
Michael
would
probably
be
a
good
candidate
to
bring
on,
but
him
and
James
literally.
A
B
D
A
D
A
E
B
That
doesn't
I.
Don't
think
that
really
matters,
though,
cause
like
if
a
site
is
light
and
violent
yeah,
because
slight
imbalance
occurs.
We're
required
to
adjust
to
that's
how
the
rules
work.
So
IBM
is
at
four
members
in
the
CTC
and
at
one
point
like
when
we
bump
that
back
up
to
four
that
was
like
pretty
close
like
if,
like
two
people
step
down
or
something
we
would
run
into
problems
like
that's
always
kind
of
been
a
thing,
but
it
does
weekly
minute
how's.
A
Okay,
so
pre-emptive
welcome
bro!
Thank
you,
everyone,
but
I'm!
Sorry,
it's
not
always
not
more
of
us
here
to
to
make
this
a
big
deal.
So,
lastly,
on
the
agenda
defining
node
core.
This
is
really
something
we
need
to
figure
out
to
move,
to
make
progress
on
the
whole
thing
about
purpose
of
this
group,
the
the
William
actually
made
an
interesting
comment.
I
thought.
The
last
comment
in
that
thread:
right
now,
which
was
actually
at
left,
was
Williams
ID
or
someone
else's,
but
the
oh,
is
it?
Was
it
William?
That's
it
yes,
okay!
A
So
the
idea
that
we
define
node
call
not
by
a
definition
but
by
a
list,
so
we
could
I
think
I,
like
the
idea
of
having
a
a
basic
definition
of
what
note
core
is
and
then
having
a
list
of
things
that
fit
within
that,
so
that
we
don't
and
then
to
change
that
list.
We
have
to
have
a
bit
of
a
discussion,
but
then
that
would
help
us
get
started
here.
It
doesn't
help
us
if
we
want
to
expand
our
activity
autonomously,
that
that
would
be
an
ideal.
A
A
C
Yeah,
it
definitely
take
this
view
of
you
know.
This
is
the
things
that
we
have
authority
over
and
the
things
that
are
necessary
for
us
to
be
able
to
accomplish
those.
You
know
whatever
this
list
is,
and
you
know
that
being
able
to
accomplish
can't
you
know
that.
That's
how
you
get
in
you
know
the
non-technical
bits,
which
are
you
know
really
just
as
important.
C
C
Of
having
like
a
list
plus
a
generic
statement,
and
then
maybe
some
language
around
like
this
is
how
we
expand
this
you're
kind
of
making
that
a
little
clearer
so
that
way,
it's
like
we
leave
some
sort
of
option
of
expanding
it,
but
the
same
time
document.
So
it
doesn't
look
like
we
can.
Just
you
know,
do
you
know
uninhibited
expansion
into
whatever.
E
A
Yeah
and
on
it
just
to
go
back
on
that
thing
about
dealing
with
the
board
I
the
board's
going
to
be
cooperative
and
unless
it's
a
really
controversial.
So
if
we
had
trouble
coming
up
with
a
good
definition
that
was
expensive
enough
for
our
own
purposes
and
just
went
with
the
list
to
help
finish
that
off
and
we
something
came
along
that
we
said
okay.
A
We
really
think
this
should
be
within
the
scope
of
what
we
do,
but
it
doesn't
come
in
via
slee
within
our
definition,
and
it
does
not
our
list
currently,
we
want
to
add
it
to
our
list.
If
we
went
to
the
board
and
said
that,
then
I'm
pretty
sure
the
board
would
sign
off
on
that
without
any
trouble,
unless
it
was
something
controversial
like
a
p.m.
or
even
express
like,
that
would
have
been
a
good
conversation
to
have
with
the
board
beforehand
anyway.
Yeah.
E
A
Okay,
what's
habit,
can
somebody
from
this
group
put
up
their
hand
to
make
a
new
issue
that
extends
from
this
one
and
proposes
an
initial
list
of
just
the
list
of
what
would
be
included
in
a
in
a
definition
of
note
core
for
the
purpose
of
governments,
and
this
proposed
that
as
a
straw
man,
so
that
we
can
then
take
the
discussion
forward
so
we'd
like
to
volunteer
it
a
lot?
That's
really
happy.
E
And
I'm
happy
to
put
something
together
as
a
starting
point
and
I'll
read
through,
we
already
have
in
see
able
to
see
what
I
can
come
up
with
in
it.
If
any
of
you
guys
have
any
bullet
points
on
the
top
of
your
mind,
let
me
know
and
I'll
put
them
in
there
too,
but
I'll
try
and
do
that
early
next
week.
C
A
I
reckon
if
we,
if
we
come
up
with
a
list
and
we
look
at
it
and
then
it'll
be
it'll-
probably
help
us
come
up
with
that
with
some
language
to
blanket
some
of
them
automatically
and
then
have
others
that
are
here's
our
definition
plus
these
projects.
So
if
we
start
with
just
the
list,
let's
look
at
that
first
and
then
work
on
language
in
github
on
throw
around
for
that.
B
A
So
look,
let's
step
back
to
the
purpose
of
this
discussion.
So
if,
if
you
recall,
we
had
the
I
tried
to
take
to
the
board
this
idea
of
a
mission
statement
for
the
whole
foundation
and
it
contains
three
things
in
it-
one
of
them
was
that
the
foundation
looks
after
note
core.
The
second
one
was
that
it
looks
after
the
open
source
ecosystem,
one
node
and
the
third
one
was.
A
It
looks
after
thee
by
looking
after
it,
I
mean
frost,
I
can't
remember
the
exact
management's,
fostering
the
ecosystem,
the
open
source
ecosystem
around
node
and
then
fostering
the
commercial
ecosystem
around
node,
so
that
includes
tools,
services,
education,
so
and
then
leading
from
that
we
had
to
have.
We
had
the
question
of
tsc
autonomy.
So
when
we
set
up
the
foundation,
the
tsc
was
given
autonomy
over
node,
so
we
could
do
our
stuff
and
the
foundation.
A
We
don't
have
to
go
to
the
foundation
constantly
to
get
sign
off
on
stuff,
so
the
old
Tony
was
actually
built
into
the
foundation
from
the
beginning.
Unfortunately,
we
took
that
too
far
and
this
idea
of
having
an
umbrella
over
lots
of
open
source
projects
that
are
related
to
node
that
started
to
happen.
Even
never.
A
lot
of
us
were
uncomfortable
with
it
and
we're
never
really
bought
into
it.
We
brought
expressing
under
that
and
then
the
board
expressed
concern
about
expansion
and
I.
A
The
executive
would
work
with
the
tsc
to
man
h
that
second
part,
which
is
the
open
source
ecosystem,
and
then
the
the
the
executive
and
the
board
would
be
would
take
some
responsibility
for
the
commercial
ecosystem.
So
no
coal,
we
do.
We
do
what
we
need
to
then
the
middle
bit,
which
is
the
open
source
ecosystem.
We
work
with
the
executive
that
we
also
need.
We
don't
have
full
autonomy,
so
we
have
we
come
under
the
board
for
that.
A
So
if
we
want
to
take
action
in
the
ecosystem,
then
it's
a
discussion
with
the
board
and
then
the
commercial
thing
is
a
second
thing.
So
the
idea
here
is
that
we
wanted
to
find
what
mode
core
is
so
that
we
know
what
our
area
of
autonomy
is
within
the
tsc
and
then
anything
outside
of
that
that
we
think
we
we
should
be
doing
automatically
sparks
a
conversation
through
the
rest
of
the
foundation,
and
then
we
need
to
get
proper
body
and
to
do
that.
A
So
if
we
imagine
that
Express
was
a
new
issue
now
under
this
new
definition-
and
we
do
have
dealt
with,
it-
has
wheat
as
we
did
then
that
wouldn't
obviously
come
under
no
corso
expresses
a
concern
we
need
to
deal
with.
Express
got
all
these
issues
going
on
there.
We
decide
it's
important
for
to
look
after
for
the
node
ecosystem.
A
We
have
a
conversation
with
with
Michael
and
his
people,
and
then
we
start
talking
to
the
board
and
we
get
a
decision
from
the
collective
about
how
we
want
to
deal
with
express
or
if
we
want
to
deal
with
express,
rather
than
just
taking
autonomous
action
on,
express
and
then
creating
a
bit
of
a
an
uproar
about
that,
but
no
nap
or
a
bit
of
concern.
So
that's
why
this
definition
is
important,
so,
rather
than
just
being
about
server-side
JavaScript,
that's
a
little
bit
too
expensive
for
the
TRC's
purposes.
A
It's
more
of
a
question
for
mission
statement
for
the
foundation.
There
is
an
issue
by
the
way
Josh
in
in
the
tsc
repo.
With
that
mission
statement,
if
you
want
to
critique
that
still
because
it
hasn't
been
signed
off
on,
if
we
want
to
adjust
that
we
can
still
do
that,
the
idea
is
we
do
this
definition
thing
then
revisit
that
and
try
and
get
that
signed
off
by
the
board
that
make
sense
everyone.
D
B
A
A
B
Were
some
comments
earlier
for
discussion
before
that
that
I,
actually
missed
so
William,
says
consider
that
other
organizations
will
have
their
subgroups
committees
bring
on
the
secretary?
Take
the
responsibility
of
doing
reporting.
These
are
not
the
people
that
are
required
to
have
the
skills
of
the
group,
giving
people
an
avenue
to
get
involved.
A
That's
a
good
point,
I
think
I
think
what
we
can
do
with
that
is
build
that
into
our
when
we
ask
from
the
group's
what
they
what
we
want,
we
give
some
options
for
how
they
approach
doing
it,
and
I
would
think
that
it
would
be
logical
to
assign
someone
within
that
group
that
has
the
interest
in
doing
it,
whether
or
not
they're
a
member
of
the
group,
or
just
an
outsider,
like
that
ctc,
for
example,
doesn't
have
to
be
a
CCC
mm
that
does
reporting.
Perhaps
a
collaborator
wants
to.
A
B
A
E
A
And
I
agree
and
I.
Think
again,
my
my
suggestion
is
my
suggestion
is
that
that
still
is
unclear
for
a
reason
and
I.
Don't
think
we
should
clarify
that
yet
until
we've
sorted
out
this
mission
and
the
role
of
tsc
once
that's
figure
that,
because,
if
you
think
about
to
when
we
first
split
off
the
tsc,
the
ideas
that
we
have
this
bill
suggestion
we
have
a
member
from
each
of
the
working
groups
in
each
of
the
projects
that
come.
No,
it
wasn't.
A
The
web
groups
was
each
of
the
new
projects
that
came
on
so
we'd
have
someone
from
express
would
have
someone
from
if
we
brought
a
PM.
You
know
all
this
sort
of
stuff
if
we
follow
that
through
we'd
end
up
with
the
tsc
that
is
quite
different
to
node
core,
it's
not
representing
node
core
anymore.
That's
my
concern.
A
C
Yeah
I
think,
even
though
you
know
the
specifics
of
people
from
different
projects,
you
know
it
probably
probably
isn't
gonna
bear
out.
You
know,
I,
think
the
sort
of
spirit
of
the
idea
of
having
representatives
from
whoever
the
group's
her
that
report
directly
to
this
TSE
on
the
tsc
yeah
I,
definitely
think
it
should
look
something
like
that.
C
So
the
CTC
you
know,
assuming
that
were
very
focused
on
the
core
CTC-
would
probably
the
majority
with
the
TSE,
but
also
be
inclusive,
ed
working
group
and,
if
you
know,
there's
any
other
working
groups
that
slowed
up
to
that
whole
or
any
other
groups.
Ya.
Can't
like
that
spirit,
a
representative
of
the
groups
that
it's
over
saying
whatever
that
ends
up
looking
like
in
practice,
I.
B
A
It's
not
that
different
we'd
same
is
on
the
CTC.
We
have
the
same
thing.
We
have
these
observers
in
meetings,
decisions,
there's
not
that
many
decisions
they
actually
come
down
to
a
vote.
So
in
practical
terms,
if
you're
in
one
of
the
meetings
and
you'll
bend
your
at
the
table,
then
that's
that's
almost
important
enough.
A
So
if
we
combine
those
things-
and
we
say
to
the
working
groups
that
we'd,
like
representatives
from
me-
well
we'd
like
we
often
you
will
see
at
the
table-
basically,
but
not
necessarily
a
membership
of
the
tsc,
then
that
might
help
us
grow.
This
group,
which
would
you
know,
be
a
positive
thing,
even
if
it's
not
technically
expanding
the
tsc
itself,
so
yeah
starting
to
get
to
her,
but
yeah
I
think
it.