►
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
C
A
A
B
There's
been
robust
discussion
in
the
issue,
since
it
was
added
to
the
agenda
with
lots
of
TSC
members
participating
and
I
would
encourage
people
to
continue
doing
that.
I'm,
not
sure,
there's
a
whole
lot
for
us
to
do
today.
I
forget
who
put
it
on
the
issue
on
the
agenda,
but
I
don't
think
there's
decision
to
be
made.
I
think
it
was
just
I
think
actually
Nick
Shaunie
anyway.
B
And
and
I
think
you
know
we
might
want
to
leave
it
on
the
agenda
just
in
case
it.
You
know
devolves
or
Peters
out,
but
hopefully
hopefully
the
docker
team
can
make
a
decision
one
way
or
the
other
in
the
next
week
or
two
and
then
that'll
be
that.
But
does
anybody
disagree?
This
is
there's
there.
We
need
to
talk
about
whether
or
not
the
docker
image
should
include
yarn
here.
A
So
it
sounds
reasonable
to
me
so
we'll
leave
the
agenda
tag
on
in
case
it
Peters
out
or
does
need
some
sort
of
action,
but
there's
it's
not
really.
You
know
a
TCE
necessary
decision
unless,
unless
there's
you
know
we're
specifically
I
guess
asked
and
there's
already
input
getting
in.
So
just
continue
that
way.
Right.
A
A
The
term
ends
May
30th.
So
we've
got
a
schedule
outlined
in
the
issue,
which
is
like
call
for
nominations:
April
16th,
close
the
nominations,
April
30th,
opening
open
balloting
on
May
1st,
announce
the
results.
May
15th
have
some
handover
and
you
know
complete
that
by
May
30th.
This
is
the
same
schedule.
We've
use
in
the
past,
so
really
I.
Unless
there's
questions,
that's
I
think
all
that
I
want
to
do
is
make
sure
people
are
aware
of.
It
know
that
the
nominations
will
open.
As
of
today.
A
Okay,
since
I
don't
hear
any,
let's
move
on
so
the
next
one,
which
is
tagged
as
no
future
directions.
Any
interest
in
online
or
in-person
summit
I
think
really
the
the
discussion
there
is
still
around
logistics
and
whether
you
know
we
want
to
you
know,
continue
to
try
and
work
on
logistics
or
you
know.
Maybe
this
is
the
wrong
time
and
we
should
defer
for
some
number
of
months.
A
A
Yeah
sorry
I'm
looking
for
that,
the
other
issue:
okay,
right,
that
one
there's
been
any
discussions
since
eight
days
ago,
I
guess
and
it
sort
of
20,
so
I
I
guess
just
is
there
any
you
know.
Do
people
think
that
we
should
be
starting
to
continue
to
push
on
this
or
maybe
just
defer
for
a
while
any
thoughts.
D
I
would
probably
I
don't
know,
maybe
take
a
vote
or
something
on
why
people
want
to
do
it
on
this
issue
and
then
we
can
go
from
there
because
right
now,
obviously
we
have
some
sort
of
topics
and
agreements
and
stuff,
but
there's
not
a
lot
of
forward
movement,
so
maybe
just
having
a
vote
of
people
actually
like
expressing
whether
they
want
to
do
this
or
not,
will
help
us
understand
if
we
need
to
continue
pushing
on
it
or
not.
I.
A
A
A
No
just
thought
it:
men
install
github,
DCO
app
for
use
in
seei,
config
travis
and
CI
config
github
reactions
repos.
So
those
are
two
repos
which
we've
newly
added
and
as
part
of
that,
I'd
like
to
try
out
the
the
DCO
bot
I,
don't
know
if
we
have
any
governance
covering
how
we
request
adding
adding
in
new
github
at
github
apps.
So
I
raised
an
issue,
Indian
mini
po,
and
it's
really
here
on
the
agenda
as
a
FYI
they're
raising
me
and
Minn
repos
seems
like
the
correct
thing.
A
A
B
A
A
I'll
just
say:
greed,
it's
okay,
to
proceed
if
there's
no
objections
within
the
next
72
hours;
okay,
so
that
takes
us.
That
is
the
list
of
things
that
were
actually
tagged
for
the
issues.
We
have
a
number
of
strategic
initiative
updates
in
the
issue
itself.
So
thank
you.
Everybody
who
put
those
in
it's
great
to
have
have
those
documented
in
advance.
A
F
Which
may
be
other
can
add
something
about
two.
He
may
have
a
bi
breaking
changes
that
would
be
difficult
to
back
port
to
or
to
back
part
in
a
non-breaking
way
to
be
14
the
decks.
So
it
may
be.
It's
important
that
we
do
that
now
before
14.0
is
released
and
that's
a
small
timeframe,
so
III
don't
know
how
how
we
can
do
that.
Yeah.
C
A
D
F
G
C
Mean
there's
a
decent
number
of
Abyei
breaking
changes
and,
and
it's
hard
to
tell
how
big
the
patch
is
going
to
be
because
you
know
for
so
so
in
the
past,
where
we've
done
it's
like
for
some
of
these
chains,
we
have
just
back
parted
deviate,
commits
that
led
to
these
changes
being
made.
That
usually
came
with
some
other
changes
attached.
C
It's
not
an
issue,
but
it
makes
the
diff
lock
or
we
have
really
just
tried
to
only
do
surface
layer,
modifications
to
the
API
itself
that
results
in
pretty
small
patches
and
so
like.
It's
gonna,
be
a
mixture
of
these
and
it's
yeah
hard
to
tell
I
guess
it's
about
as
large
as
previous
ABI
patches
that
we
have
made
in
this
kind
of
situation.
If
you
want
to
take
a
look
at
okay.
H
Yeah
I
would
chime
in
here
like
as
someone
who's
helped
with
a
bunch
of
the
v8
stuff
before,
like
the
the
bigger
concern
that
I
would
have
with.
This
would
not
be
like
supporter
stability
or,
like
anything
like
that,
it
would
be
much
more
along
the
lines
of
like
do.
We
actually
have
time
to
get
this
done.
You
know
like
any
mana
and
yeah.
The
fan
is
committing
to
the
time
to
doing
it,
but
I
think
that
it's
definitely
prudent
to
move
forward
with
it.
H
H
Work
later,
but
I
think
that
that's
actually
a
really
important
part
because,
like
especially
for
the
lifetime
of
fourteen,
if
we
want
to
have
the
most
modern
version
of
node,
like
I,
think
I'm
trying
to
remember
how
many
versions
are
head.
We've
done
multiple
versions
in
a
head
in
the
past,
I
think
it
was
for
12
to
ensure
a
bi
compatibility
as
far
forward
as
possible.
So
I
see
no
concerns
with
it.
Personally.
H
I
can
pin
to
the
ATM
and
see
if
anyone
there
had
bandwidth
to
chime
in
if
they
have
concerned.
This
is
somewhat
unrelated
and
not
a
topic
that
we
should
dig
into,
but
if
people
have
time
and
I
could
see,
if
I
can
find
some
time,
I'd
really
love
us
to
like
look
back
into
a
bi
validation
tools.
I
know
we
had
like
some
really
really
sketchy
ways
of
trying
to
do
it
with
Citian
but
but
I
think
especially
kind
of
moving
forward
for
for
other
updates
on
this
branch.
A
A
A
You
know,
I've
got
some
feedback
from
the
most
active,
build
workgroup
members
and
you
know,
there's
a
foundation
to
suggest
that
a
particular
vendor
so
we're
you
know
working
with
them
to
take
that
say,
given
the
scope,
what
would
it
cost-
and
you
know,
get
some
feedback
just
to
see
if
that's
going
to
be
a
reasonable
option
or
not
any
questions
on
that?
One.
H
H
Don't
think
that
we're
going
to
be
able
to
reach
consensus
and
gain
get
the
warning
removed
in
time
for
1400,
which
I
believe
is
due
for
next
Tuesday
but
I
think
we're
we're
kind
of
at
the
point
where
we
want
to
remove
the
the
warning
pretty
pretty
soon
in
the
14
release.
Liner.
That's
on
the
agenda
for
us
to
discuss
in
the
next
modules
team
meeting
I
think
we're
all
still
pretty
close
to
agreement
that
we
want
to
remove
the
flag
in
1217.
A
E
I,
don't
there's
nothing
really
to
be
concerned
about
there
at
this
point,
it's
I
think
there's
nothing
major
new,
nothing
new
or
major
being
added,
so
there
is
still
some
work
in
stabilizing
I.
Think
the
I
think
iterator
stuff
on
streams,
and
then
you
know
there
is
some
more
overarching
question
around
other
big
api's
like
HTTP
or
anything
that
are
probably
worthwhile
thinking
in
a
in
a
separate
manner.
So
right,
I,
don't
know
if
there
is
anything
I,
don't
think
this
should
be
plans
to
add
more.
E
To
be
honest,
so
we
might
as
well
I
think
we
have
covered
most
of
the
cases
so
HTTP.
So
that's
at
least
money,
my
read
of
it,
so
we
might
even
think
about
dropping
it
in
the
future.
Unless
there
is
some
some
more
activity,
there
is
a
few
things
that
we
might
want
to
do
still,
but
I
don't
know
if
there
is
much
potential
so
yeah.
A
A
E
What
the
point
is
that
is
there
something
that
we
feel
it's
that
is
really
missing.
Okay,
on
on
this
and
there's
been
a
few
additions,
there's
been
a
few
things.
There
is
modules
that
have
not
been
really
made.
Promise,
however,
promise
capable,
but
should
they
like
the
right
be
yeah?
There
is
there's
a
question:
should
we
put
in
the
effort
to
create
promise
based
API
for
DNS,
for
example?
I,
don't
know
like
those
are
questions
that
are
totally
valid.
E
E
H
H
E
H
E
C
H
H
E
H
A
H
A
Yeah,
that
would
that
was
certainly
one
of
the
think.
The
topics
we
had
for,
like
the
the
next
ten
years
of
of
node
but
and
I,
but
I,
think
that
that
you
know
the
way
miles
have
just
cast
it
as
let's
look
at
the
API
is
and
what
needs
to
be
do
doing
going
forward,
as
opposed
to
just
the
one
focus
on
promises,
or
maybe
other
things
as
well.