►
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
A
No,
okay,
then
we'll
move
on
to
the
regular
agenda.
We
do
have
a
fairly
light
agenda
from
what
was
tagged.
However,
there
were
a
few
suggestions
from
rich,
so
we
can
get
to
those
after
we
touch
on.
First
one
is
tracking
meaning
tracking
issue
for
updating
the
TCM
board
meetings.
I
know
there
was
a
board
meeting
and
I
think
there
was
an
update
for
miles,
but
since
he's
not
here,
maybe
we'll
let
we'll
defer
to
next
time
to
let
him
do
that
in
person.
A
A
So
I'm
just
going
to
go
through
the
list
to
see
where
we
have
on
the
napi
fronts.
One
of
the
main
things
is
getting.
As
we
mentioned
last
time,
the
thread-safe
functionality,
backported
I,
know
Gabriel
you're,
making
some
good
progress
on
that.
Are
there
any
concerns
or
things
you
want
to
raise
on
that
front?
Nope.
B
A
C
D
A
I
do
know
he's
also
working
on
TLS
1/3
support.
You
know
getting
some
things
landed.
It
sounds
like
there
was
a
blocker
due
to
a
change
in
open
SSL,
but
actually
it
you
know
through
conversation
and
discussion
it.
It
turns
out
that
it's
also
affecting
other
other
projects
like
nginx
and
it
it
seems
likely
I
think
for
at
least
from
my
last
understanding
that
they
may
actually
make
a
change
that
will
help
us
out
on
that
front
as
well.
A
E
A
One
quick
question
in
another
discussion:
I
think
in
the
build
working
group
it
sounded
like
we'll
need
a
much
newer
compiler
for
73.
Does
that
match
your
understanding.
E
E
B
C
A
A
A
A
Good
and
then
we
don't
have
sorry
friend,
so
we
know
update
on
the
Python
3
and
chip
progress,
although
I
I
think
I
will
mention
that
I
can
start
to
see
additional
activity
and
I
was
pointed
out
that
you
know,
maybe
even
in
that
issue,
that
the
end
of
life
is
the
end
of
this
year.
So
it's
probably
just
good
to
have
a
heads
up
for
people
to
help
support
the
efforts
on
that
front.
If
they
see
things
that
need
to
be
reviewed
or
pushed
forward
or
whatever.
A
Hey
so
that's
in
terms
of
the
initiatives
now,
the
two
other
or
actually
there.
A
Of
other
issues,
two
other
two
other
main
categories
that
Richard
suggested
we
might
want
to
talk
about
and
I
think
it's
maybe
good.
Since
we
have
time,
I'd
suggest
we
of
the
two.
Maybe
we
look
at
two
five,
seven,
four,
seven.
First,
this
is
a
PR
and
I'll,
try
and
frame
it,
and
anybody
else
has
a
veteran's.
Unless
anybody
else
thinks
has
already
looked
at
it
carefully
and
feels
comfortable
doing
that.
A
If
not,
okay
I
mean
it's
it's
around
the
unhandled
rejections
and
at
one
point
we
added
a
deprecation
warning
that
I
that
I
believe
says
that
basically
says
it.
You
know
if
you
don't
handle
your.
If
you
don't
handle
your
unhandled
rejections,
node
will
start
crashing
at
some
point
and
you
know
a
PR
was
open
saying
you
know,
I
think
we've
changed
their
mind
on
that,
or
at
least
we've
agreed.
We
don't
have
agreement
that
we're
actually
going
to
do
that.
A
You
know:
well,
whether
it's
right
or
not
and
sort
of
reopen.
You
know
the
potentials.
I
think
to
reopen
the
discussion
around
that
particular
topic
and
I
agree
with
rich
that
if
we
have
some
thoughts
on
on
that
front,
it
may
help
to
add
them
in
there.
So
I,
don't
know
what
people
you
know.
Does
anybody
have
any
thoughts
in
terms
of
if
we
haven't
agreed
we're
actually
going
to
deprecated
it,
and-
and
you
know,
if
we're
not
gonna,
actually
crash
at
some
point
or
believe
that
we've
got
a
path
to
getting
there?
A
D
A
We
can
move
on
to
that
one
next,
okay,
so
nobody
like
I
guess
where
we
we,
if
we
do
have,
if
any
of
us,
have
any
context
that
we
can
help
in
terms
of
yellow
the
historic
history
and
of
what
we
did
agree
to
not
agree
to
jumping
in
there
might
help,
because
I
think
there's
like
there
are
two
to
strong
views,
and
you
know
that
some
of
the
context
of
history
or
whatever
might
help
keep
the
discussion
in
a
positive
direction.
I
guess
I'll,
let's
say.
D
Yeah,
it
sounds
to
me
like
it's
any
Gus
and
Jordan
that
are
really
strong
on
pushing
ahead
with
this
now
they've
got
very
strong
opinions,
obviously,
and
the
tone
and
the
rest
of
their
is.
You
know,
let's
take
it
easy,
but
there's
like
there's
really
not
that
many
people
is
like
this
Benjamin
and
that's
about
it.
Oh
and
Reuben.
A
Okay,
so
then
the
next
one
that
was
suggested
was
taking
a
look
at
the
buffer
deprecation,
so
those
are
numbers:
2,
1,
3,
5,
1,
&,
2,
2,
5,
8
4,
which
I
think
we
do
discuss
pretty
much
every
release.
It's
maybe
I
think
the
suggestion
was
it's
possibly
better
to
have
that.
You
know
start
that
discussion
earlier
than
later
and
I
wonder
what
other
people
think
like
is,
is
something
yeah?
What
what
are
people's
thoughts
in
terms
of?
Is
it
the
right
time
to
discuss
that?
Should
we
wait.
D
A
B
Well,
I'm
fairly,
certain
that
that
that
actual
usage
of
the
buffer
constructor
has
decreased
right,
I
mean
I,
I
filed
a
bunch
of
PRS
and
a
lot
of
them
got
merged
or
for
replacing
the
buffer
constructor,
with
a
lock
and
and
from
so
I,
don't
know
you
we
mentioned
I
think
it
was
either
in
a
TSC
meeting
or
an
napi
meeting
that
there
is
a
tool
for
or
for
going
through,
github
and
basically
sort
of
crawling
the
repos
and
see
look
for
usage
like
something
that
I
did
accept
automated
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
resurrect
that
it's
it's
from
an
old
version
of
like
from
way
back
when,
when
notes
started
out,
somebody
did
that
for
the
entire
ecosystem.