►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/115
* 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)
* James Snell - https://github.com/jasnell (TSC)
* Bryan Hughes - https://github.com/nebrius (TSC)
A
Today,
we're
going
to
do
I'm
going
to
do
with
a
quick
review
of
last
meeting,
so
we
did.
We
talked
about
regular
role
at
reporting
for
active
working
groups.
That's
on
me
too,
to
continue
that
process
on
github
still
haven't
followed
that
up,
unfortunately,
but
so
are
they
adding?
Brian
is
a
member
of
the
tsc,
and
we
in
have
enough
members
for
quorum
last
week,
but
we
should
have
to
be
able
to
have
enough
to
finalize
that
off
this
week
and
defining
noahcorp
is
another
topic
we're
going
to
continue
this
week?
C
D
I'm
going
to
go
next
working
on
what
the
VG
URL
implementation
HTTP
to
stuff
looking
at
the
improving
HTTP
288
regularly
should
be
one
standard,
support
and
mentoring,
reviewing
issues,
but
that's
been
fairly
light.
Also
heads
up
I'm
going
to
be
on
two
weeks
vacation
starting
about
this,
not
tomorrow
but
next
friday
and
will
be
pretty
much
unavailable
for
to.
A
D
A
So
one
thing
that
I
did
was
the
security
release
and
and
even
though
I
didn't
do
all
of
the
releases
I
own
to
10
and
12,
just
realizing
how
much,
how
much
time
it
takes
to
get
those
things
ready
in
terms
of
getting
the
messaging
out
there
making
sure
all
of
the
things
are.
All
the
things
are
all
lined
up
that
we
need
to
do.
A
A
A
A
A
E
Teleconferencing
so
the
update
from
my
end
up
not
a
whole
lot.
I've
been
traveling
a
lot,
as
has
a
number
of
other
people.
One
thing
we
did
have
the
inclusively
working
group,
though
we
do
have
a
member
that
needed
to
step
down.
So
we
can't
went
through
the
off
boarding
process
on
that,
but
that's
that
all
I
got
at
my
end.
E
Which
you
know
this
is
something
that
we
expect
to
happen
just
with
the
inclusivity
group,
because
it's
not
quite
as
much
a
typical
type
of
coding
word
where
it
fits
into
the
job.
So
it's
these
kind,
people
doing
it
in
their
own
spare
time.
So
you
know
this
is
just
something
that
kind
of
happens.
She
says.
F
People's
place,
it's
interesting
that
you
actually
have
an
off
warning
profit
and
there's
like
an
elegant
way
to
do
that,
like
we're
kind
of
lacking
that
you
have
like
these
lists
of
people
with
some
of
them
just
aren't
active
anymore.
We
don't
really
have
another
good
way
to
bring
them
down,
so
maybe
we
can
like
after
you,
you
know,
have
gone
through
that
and
have
some
commented.
We
can
generalize
that
oh.
E
Yeah
I
can
go
and
talk
about
that
because
it's
it's.
We
finished
that
process.
It's
basically
just
a
list
of.
We
need
to
remember
to
remove
them
from
the
github
org,
some
slack
permissions.
It's
like
mostly
permissions,
we're
just
making
sure
we
kind
of
do
all
the
paperwork
around
that
one
thing
we
decided
to
do
with
it
is
normally
when
we
on
board
someone,
we
file
an
issue
and
we
check
it
off
as
we
go.
E
We
have
the
temple,
but
we
decided
not
to
file
an
issue
about
it,
mostly
to
kind
of
keep
a
sort
of
low-key
young
people
leave
for
all
sorts
of
reasons,
but
a
lot
of
were
totally
valid
like
this
one
was,
but
you
know
sometimes
they
might
end
up
looking
like
it.
You
know
we
kicked
them
out
or
maybe
something
nefarious
and
we
just
kind
of
rather
not
deal
with
that
sort
of
public
visibility.
Aspect
right.
A
Hit
a
moving
into
meeting
I've
moved
Brian
as
a
member
of
the
tsc
up
to
the
top,
so
we
can
get
the
results.
So
we
have
we've
got
seven
votes,
that's
enough!
Recor
on
now
the
votes
were
hang
on.
Just
let
me
read
this
off
from
last
week.
It
was
myself
James,
Alexis,
Jeremiah
and
then
on
github.
We
had
Julian
Jackie
Brian.
A
A
A
Now
regul,
as
I
said,
I
haven't
done
anything
else
on
this
side.
This
is
just
one
of
those
tasks
that
I
haven't
been
able
to
get
you,
but
I
was
going
to
continue
this
on
github
and
we
have
some
notes
from
last
week.
Unfortunately,
the
meeting
notes
are
not
fantastic
because
I'm
having
to
take
them
while
I'm
talking,
but
there's
enough
notes
in
there
about
what
we
do,
the
ideas
we
came
up
with
so
I'll
post
them
to
github
and
get
that
rolling
I
have
had.
A
I
have
had
a
bunch
of
questions
about
the
overlap
between
what
this
is
and
what
Jeremiah's
been
posting
with
the
weekly
working
group
stuff.
So,
while
I
think
it's
quite
clear
that
the
difference
we
just
need
to
clarify,
I
think
that
this
is
about
learning.
The
working
groups
speak
for
themselves.
It's
it's!
It's
not
necessarily
just
about
the
activity
that
they've
been
doing,
but
it's
things,
there's
bigger
picture
things
and
future
things,
and
it's
also
a
lot
less
frequent.
E
A
B
Sorry
I
was
on
mute.
You
can
hear
me
now.
Yes,
okay,
so
right
so
the
discussion
last
time
was,
you
know
we
wanted
to
try
it
and
take
it
a
slightly
different
approach
of
listing
the
things
that
we
would
think
would
be
in
scope
for
node
car
and
as
I
started
to
go
through
that.
You
know
what
made
sense
to
me
and
I'm
not
sure
if
it
makes,
will
make
sense
in
anybody
else's
mind.
B
But
this
is
what
I
wrote
down
was
to
list
not
necessarily
like
the
pieces
that
would
be
within
scope,
but
the
kinds
of
things
that
we
would
want
to
be
making
decisions
on
without
having
to
go
and
consult
with
the
board.
So
I
tried
to
list
those
out.
You
know
the
discussion
last
time
that
was
coming
up
with
a
concrete
list
would
be
good,
because
people
can
look
at
each
eye
and
say
yes,
no
or
you
know
this
is
controversial.
B
B
B
B
F
A
couple
things
about
that
right,
like
there's.
That's
all,
definitely
true,
but
there's
also
kind
of
like
a
tacit
understanding
that
we're
not
going
to
add
things
or
create
repository
they're
like
far
outside
of
some
kind
of
scope
that
we
haven't
actually
defined,
but
yeah
I
cover
that
in
the
later
ones,
yeah,
okay,
and
that.
B
F
And
for
the
second
point
for
the
for
the
contribution
policy
in
third
in
the
Charter,
there
are
some
like
kind
of
requirement
in.
In
particular,
it
says
that,
like
your
TSP
can
be
dominated
by
a
single
company,
and
I
think
that
there's
also
some
kind
of
test
understanding
that
we
that
the
contribution
policies
that
we
created
all
these
repos
are
set
up
in
such
a
way
that,
like
one
company
or
one
person,
can
take
over
that's
the
best,
like
the
only
real
restriction
that
we
have
as.
B
E
B
B
B
B
B
But
it's
okay!
So
that's
where
I
tried
to
sort
of
dry
those
lines,
no
tweet,
we
can
decide
what
we
want
to
use.
We
can
use
it,
we
can
even
put
it
into
the
repos
and
dependencies,
but
the
line
is
pretty
much
when
you
say
well,
I
want
to
bring
this
project.
This
will
establish
project
into
the
foundation
itself.
B
So
maybe
I'll
go
through
the
next
three,
because
they're
kind
of
getting
into
those?
Yes,
it's
basically
saying
you
know
which
external
components
node
will
depend
on
and
how
they'll
be
bundled
into
know
distributions.
So
examples
like
no
jib
e,
eight
openssl,
but
this
does
not
include
bringing
the
dependent
project
itself
under
the
foundation
umbrella,
but
does
cover
include
including
a
copy
of
the
code
for
the
dependency
and
the
dependency
trees
are
including
them
in
the
node
distribution.
B
B
That
may
or
may
not
be
shipped
as
part
of
node,
and
you
know
this
is
different
than
moving
an
existing
project
community,
the
foundation
umbrella
and
adding
it
to
the
github,
nodejs
and
I
think
that's
substantially
different,
because
you
know
the
existing
for
an
existing
project
would
bring
potentially
different
committers
a
whole
bunch
of
work,
different
processes,
whereas
if
we're
just
creating
something
ourselves,
you
know
we
could
have
created
that
in
one
of
our
existing
repos.
But
you
know
logistical
or
whatever
reasons
it
makes
sense,
to
create
a
new
repo
to
do
that.
Work.
B
F
Think
another
thing
here
like
like
here's
one,
that's
going
to
be
really
difficult
to
define
for
because
it's
a
totally
reasonable
thing
for
us
to
do,
but
also
is
like
probably
out
of
the
scope
that
we
want
to
define,
which
is
like
a
Jenkins
replacement
right
like
if
we
started
working
on
the
Jenkins
replacement.
Would
we
do
that
in
the
no
jayus
order?
We
do
it
somewhere
else
right
and
and
there's
there's
I
mean
there's.
F
C
Right,
yeah,
I
kind
of
I
think
I'm,
probably
the
leading
personal,
not
sort
of
idea.
Now
the
only
thing
that
I
would
come
till
there
is
anything
we
would
build,
would
really
not
be
like
Jenkins
alternative
it'd
be
a
lot
more
specific
to
are
set
up
in
our
maids,
but
it's
still
definitely
quite
a
large
undertaking.
C
A
I
would
hope
that
if,
if
we
went
down
that
path
encouraged
something
that
was
a
value
way
beyond
node
that
we
would
have
an
existing
pattern
set
up
where
we
know
our
bands-
and
we
look
at
me-
say
well,
this
thing's
sort
of
bigger
than
we
are
now.
So,
let's
consider
moving
it
to
a
different
home
or
you
know
we
would
have
that
discussion
about
how
logical
it
is
that
it
belongs,
but
they're
thinking,
yeah.
We
do
have
to
think
of
this
situation
where
you
know
a
few
years
down
the
track.
A
E
Is
this
something
that
we
may
want
to
create
some
processes
around
heading
down
like
something's,
are
like
sort
of
formalized
like
we've
created
this
thing,
it
started
off
very
no
specific
and
so
well
within
our
scope,
but
then
laterz
like
well.
It
makes
us
spin
it
out
so
way
too
eager
about
that
yeah.
A
Yeah,
okay,
so
so
the
fact
is
that
if
we
make
it
under
the
github
org
as
as
the
foundation,
then
it's
owned
by
the
foundation,
so
yeah
wait
with
that
would
need
to.
That
would
require
a
discussion
with
the
board
anyway,
if
we
want
to
do
something
with
it,
so
therefore
yeah
okay
full
for
now,
then
let's
leave
that,
as
is
oh.
E
Maybe
we
could
just
kind
of
add
a
footnote
to
this
saying
that
I,
you
know
any
technology
here
may
at
some
point
in
time
be
spun
out
if
it
feels
like
the
Scopes
too
big
I'm
just
thinking
you
know
this
could
be
a
point
that
people
might
have
issues
with
Shambo
board.
You
know,
because
that
might
be
you
know.
Feud
is
over
broad
yeah.
B
A
Haven't
had
that
just
something
really
simple
like
it
is
expected
that
this
these
would
be
reviewed
from
time
to
time
to
assess
the
applicability
to
the
foundation.
We
have
a
continued
threat,
maybe
yeah!
Listen
that,
let's
not.
Let's
not.
There
actually
asked
the
board
to
get
involved.
Okay,
yeah
I,
don't
think
what
that,
but
just
let's
just
note
that
this
is
something
that
we
as
people
who
are
writing
this
to
the
people
who
are
reading
and
eventually
suggest
that
if
you
looked
at
yeah.
B
E
F
Coming
back
to
the
whole
bringing
project
anything,
we
do
need
enough
room
to
be
able
to
pull
in
like
we
brought
in,
though
right
like
that
was
like
a
really
kind
of
obvious
decision.
We
didn't
go
through
any
kind
of
our
board
process
that
we
didn't
go
through
like
any
kind
of
incubator
process.
We
just
integrated
into
the
development
of
knows
right.
B
We
look
at
the
same
right,
so
yeah
I
was
gonna.
Bring
up.
That
like
ll
note,
is
something
that
you
know
we're
discussing
whether
again,
but
I
I,
guess
I'm
sort
of
thinking
back
to
rods.
Earlier
comment
about.
You
know
the
board
is
not
necessarily
anniversary
at
adversary
in
those
kind
of
cases.
It
may
just
be
that
we
say
well.
We
want
to
bring
in
this
existing
project.
Oh
well,
actually
you
know
all
the
contributors
are
no
people,
it's
actually
very
closely
aligned
with
no
there's
only
like
three
contributors.
F
Yeah
yeah
I,
that's
totally
true
I,
just
like
I
I
struggled
with
it
cuz.
I
was
thinkin
about
this
so
well
and
I
struggled
to
find
a
way
to
write
this,
where
we
could
easily
bring
in
something
like
no
chip
without
lugging
mothering
the
board,
but
wouldn't
be
so
broad
that
we
could
like
bring
in
v8
or
chakra.
F
A
Is
what
his
one
is
a
concrete
example?
We
can
actually
use
to
think
this
through
so
Felix
rise,
Berg
from
Microsoft
made
that
Windows
build
tools
project,
so
that's
just
a
little
way
of
in
start
of
headless
Lee,
installing
visual
studio,
C++
and
all
the
build
tools
anyway
and
Python,
so
that
you
can
have
build
tools
on
your
Windows
machine.
So
that's
his
personal,
pretty
under
his
personal
github.
A
A
So
I
like
the
idea
of
having
to
make
the
case
to
the
board,
not
not
necessarily
to
get
the
board
involved,
because
I
really
want
to
get
the
more
involved
in
all
these
little
things,
but
that
process
of
having
to
make
the
case
to
the
board
is
actually
a
good
one,
because
it
it's
a
step
that
requires
justifying
what
you're
doing
the
process
itself
is
probably
good.
Yeah.
B
A
And,
on
the
other,
other
end
of
this
spectrum
might
be
nvm.
So
would
these
these
discussions
about
Jordans
wanting
to
consider
putting
in
via
me
to
the
foundation
that
once
a
little
is
clear,
because
you
know
it's
got
competition,
it's
not
necessarily
directly
within
our
scope.
You
know
it's
a
little
bit
fuzzy
so
having
to
make
that
case
would
be
an
interesting
process
like
having
to
write
down.
Why
would
we
bring
this
in
would
be
a
health,
a
very
healthy
thing
to
do
rather
than
just
making
that
decision
and
it
being
done.
A
B
Yeah
and
I
guess
we'll
get
their
feedback
to
say.
You
know
it's
too
much,
but
father
I
don't
think
it
happens.
All
that
often
you
know,
but
you
know
otherwise.
I
I
really
do
think
they're
trying
to
come
up
with
some
other
measures
are
going
to
be
pretty
tough.
So
unless
it's
a
problem,
just
saying
can
we
get
quick?
Okay
would
make
sense.
A
Now
I
guess
they
can
do
be
done
in
batches
as
well.
If
we
need
to
so.
If,
for
example,
we
had
an
express
like
situation
where
we
want
to
bring
in
you
know
whole
org
into
l
into
the
generation
that
had
100
100
different
repos
under
we
could
do
it
in
ur
bed
be
in
the
batch
and
yesterday's
justify
that
way.
Yeah.
B
I
I
think
it's
a
here's
could
easily
be
here's
the
10
we
want
to
do
or
hundred
or
whatever
and
here's
the
reasons.
Here's
the
scope
I
mean
I
suspect
that
it's
going
to
be
pretty
easy
for
them.
If
it's
a
small
thing
where
it's
like
you
know,
there's
20
files
to
contributors,
it's
probably
pretty
easy
to
make
the
case.
You
need
a
couple
paragraphs
right
if
it's
big
thing,
bigger
thing
like
Express
you're
going
to
have
to
do
more
work,
and
that
probably
does
make
sense
right.
B
A
B
Had
one
will
put
yeah
the
last
point
was
you
know
the
overall
text?
Technical
direction
for
them
so
includes
all
the
top-level
direction,
as
well
as
decisions
on
what
specific
features
will
be
included
excluded
where
to
encourage
contributions
within
community,
as
well
as
all
aspects
of
how
the
technical
direction
is
managed
and
the
ideas
that
you
know
outside
those
things,
and
it's
something
that
doesn't
fall
into
that
list
of
bullets.
Then
we
would
consult
with
the
pork
you.
B
D
B
I'm
just
trying
to
think
like
the
technically
I,
you
know,
I'm
hoping
that
the
way
it
is
nothing
technically
oriented
should
be
excluded
other
than
you
know
the
ability
to
bring
in
external
projects
in
terms
of
business
things.
It
doesn't
really
list
very
much
about
you
know
sponsoring
conferences
or
any
things
like
that.
B
A
Okay,
what
about
the
second
point
native
stands
and
presses
is
covering
contributions.
Let's
say
the
next
generation
tsc
wants
to
change
from
an
open
governance
model
to
something
more
BBF,
Elish
or
something
that
is.
That
is
not
clearly
within
the
spirit
of
what
we
set
up
these
open
governance.
So
that's
we.
F
F
B
F
So
the
CDC
can't
do
that,
because
the
way
that
the
TSA
Charter
is
written
is
that
it's
like
pretty
specific
to
Khor.
So
it
actually
covers
core.
But
you
could
see
it
happening
with
like
one
of
the
other
defendants
right
like
if
say,
no
Jeff
wanted
a
poppy,
I
thought
model
or
something
or
you
know,
do
the
streams.
F
A
C
A
C
A
It's
it's!
It's
designed
to
be
strict
right
back.
It
can
be
multi
vm,
all
that's
what
stuff
like
it's!
It's
radically
different,
that
that
creates
a
challenge
for
the
whole
foundation,
so
it
creates
challenge
for
marketing.
They
did
everyone.
Basically,
so
that's
the
kind
of
thing.
We
definitely
want
to
involve
the
boarding
just
to
make
sure
that
if
we.
C
F
E
E
E
F
C
Like
a
weird
philosophy
thing
because,
like
nucleus,
isn't
necessarily
like
strictly
one
thing:
it's
just
kind
of
like
okay,
here's
like
it,
basically
a
rough
speck
on
a
set
of
tests,
and
you
can
make
any
implementation
against
that.
So
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
pull
in.
Like
of
these,
the
rust
based
duct
tape
invitation.
We
could
have
like
this
pseudo
spec
that
VMs
contest
against
they
can
make
their
own
things
wherever
and
we
can
have
like
whatever,
when
we
ship
a
core.
Ok.
A
C
How
so
well,
if
you
read
up
on
like
the
nucleus
public
in
current
the
current
the
way
the
current
bit
of
structure
setup
has
has
like
the
duct
tape
invitation
it.
But
the
reality
is
like
the
main
thing.
That's
actually
like
nucleus
is
essentially
the
test
suite
in
the
specs,
and
anyone
can
could
theoretically
write
an
implementation
against
that.
F
A
E
A
Is
I
think
there
is
an
important
distinction
between
using
something
and
bringing
it
in
bring
the
ownership
in
and
and
even
if
we
were
to
like,
take
ownership
of
nucleus
and
strip
out
those
things
that
we
don't
like
like
duct
tape
of
entation,
for
example,
it's
still
taking
ownership
to
something
new
and
it's
it's
it
is.
It
creates
challenges
for
the
whole
foundation
that
we
just
need
to
make
sure
we're
all
in
sync,
with
like
we
having
to
trigger
that
conversation.
A
Would
do
but
but
the
but
having
to
have
that
step
in
their
forces
us
to
be
very
clear
about
what
we're
doing
and
why
we're
doing
it,
and
if
we
can't
justify
to
the
board
while
we're
doing
it,
then
we
probably
don't
deserve
to
have
it
in
any
way
like
if
we
can't
make
that
case.
So
true
so
and
if
we
end
up
with
a
hospital
board
in
the
future,
then
we're
screwed
anyway.
So
yeah.
A
F
B
B
F
A
F
Yeah
yeah
I
can
I
can
try
to
help
that
in
actually
just
as
caveat
because,
like
you
know,
saying
up
front
like
within
the
confines
of
the
TSD
hugger
and
even
even
people
reading
the
tsc
charter
are
not
really
going
to
be
able
to
figure
this
out
like
it's
like.
It's
very
subtle,
and
it's
like
a
lot
of
kind
of
like
behind
the
scenes.
Illegal
stuff.
C
B
B
F
Okay,
so
keep
in
mind
that
the
board
may
fall
back
to
quarterly
meetings
at
some
point,
so
there
could
be
up
to
a
three
months
turn
around
time
to
go
to
the
board
for
something.
If
you
wanted
to
prepare
for
the
meeting
and
not
use
the
mailing
list
for
it,
it
was
urgent.
We
could
we
could
do
it
further.
My
own,
this
couldn't
wait.
Yeah
yeah.
A
F
E
F
A
B
A
Michael,
that's
up
to
you.
I
think,
if
you
think,
you've
got
enough
content
here
to
turn
into
a
document.
Do
it
that
way,
and
then
we
can
refine
the
wording
down.
The
document
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
land,
but
we
can
do
it
through
that
way
to
refine
the
wording
and
then
figure
out
where
the
document
goes.
After
that
yeah.