►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/152
Bryan Hughes - https://github.com/nebrius (TSC)
Colin Ihrig - https://github.com/cjihrig (TSC)
Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
James M Snell - https://github.com/jasnell (TSC)
Josh Gavant - https://github.com/joshgav (observer/Microsoft)
Mikeal Rogers - https://github.com/mikeal (observer/Node.js Foundation)
Bert Belder - https://github.com/piscisaureus (TSC)
Rod Vagg - https://github.com/rvagg (TSC)
William Kapke - https://github.com/williamkapke (Observer)
Tracy Hinds - https://github.com/hackygolucky (observer/Node.js Foundation)
Anna Henningson - https://github.com/addaleax (observer/CTC)
Michael Dawson - https://github.com/mhdawson (observer/CTC)
Fedor Indutny - https://github.com/indutny (TSC)
Jenn Turner - https://github.com/renrutnnej (observer/Node Foundation)
Jordan Harband - https://github.com/ljharb (Observer)
A
Welcome
to
the
node
foundation
tsc
meeting
for
the
six
of
october
2016.
Are
we
going
to
get
into
a
really
quick
stand
up,
got
a
big
agenda
today
but
see
if
we
can
bang
through
it
really
quickly.
So,
first
of
all,
Brian
Hughes,
if
you'd
only
thing
tsc
related
in
the
last
two
weeks,
nothing
new
to
report
right
now,
culinary.
A
C
A
F
Right,
Tracy
I
just
wanted
to
give
a
heads
up
on
the
inclusivity
proposal.
I
know,
y'all
are
still
waiting
on
it.
So
it's
not
like
it's
gone.
It's
not
like
hiding
and
y'all
haven't
been
shown
it.
Yet
it's
still
in
progress
thanks
to
me
being
a
bit
behind
after
known,
interactive
EU,
but
y'all
will
feel
that
soon
I
was
also
waiting
on
talking
to
the
consultant
that
was
going
to
try
and
help
me
with
some
blind
spots
for.
A
A
Okay,
all
right
so
review
of
last
meeting,
so
we
did
scope
of
responsibility
stuff
the
dirt
cut,
defining
noahcorp,
that's
a
one
will
hopefully
get
rolled
and
wrapped
up
soon,
but
not
this
week
looked
at
the
revised
membership
rules.
We'll
look
at
it
again.
We
did
rest
request
for
Foundation
funds
for
Jeremiah
to
go
to
the
es
modules,
meetings
and
tc39.
A
We
did
some
github
bot
work,
there's
two
issues
there
regarding
permissions
and
required
docs
and
that's
been
organized,
so
github
bot
has
made
progress
so
we're
going
to
get
into
from
the
community
travel
fund.
So
this
I
put
this
on
the
agenda.
This
is
michael's
issue,
Michael,
simply
requesting
input
from
from
us
regarding
how
much
we
should
put
on
the
budget,
given
that
we
now
have
some
momentum
on
requesting
funds
for
travel,
we
might
want
to
consider
how
much
we
could
potentially
spend
in
a
year's
worth
of
budget
for
2017.
So
Michael.
G
Well,
as
it's
in
this
item
essentially
like,
we
just
need,
however,
much
budget
that
you
know
you
think
you're
going
to
use,
especially
if
you
want
to
use
me
early
on
in
2017
without
having
to
go
back
to
the
board
I,
don't
think
that
you,
like
you,
know
if
it's
too
low
and
you
need
more
later,
you
can
request
that
the
board
increases
it.
That's
not
a
huge
problem.
The
main
thing
is
just
that
you
know
it
takes
at
least
a
month,
usually
to
get
the
board
to
increase
the
funding.
A
G
G
A
G
Mean
another
thing
that
we
can
do
that
it
was
originally
set
up
to
do
is
that
you
know,
if
said,
if
the
tsc
feels
like
somebody
should
represent
the
tsc
in
the
foundation
at
an
event,
they
can
send
that
person
there.
It
was
originally
set
up
for
that.
You
know
so
that
you
know
if
we
want
to
send
rod
or
Jeremiah
or
somebody
to
speak
for
the
foundation
at
a
community
around.
A
F
We've
had
I
will
say:
we've
had
a
couple
instances
where
even
community
conferences
have
reached
out
to
us
and
said,
like
we'd
love,
to
see
someone
speak
at
a
conference
and
I
mean
that's
the
thing
in
itself
that
I
think
conferences
should
know
that
they
should
be
able
to
come
to
you
all,
because
that's
who
they
want
to
hear
speak,
but
also
they
tend
to
have
limited
funds.
So,
for
you
know,.
H
F
G
There's
also
some
events
that
are
more
industry-wide,
that
don't
cover
travel
that
we
may
want
no
to
have
a
presentation
at
you
know
things
like
foie
stem
or
I
daresay
oz
con,
or
you
know,
just
really
big
kind
of
open
source
conferences.
We
don't
have
a
lot
of
node
representation
there
and
the
these
conferences
traditionally
have
not
covered
that.
So,
if
strategically,
the
tsc
wants
to
have
people
there
that
that
could
be
fun.
G
A
H
G
F
I
mean
just
thinking
about
it
too,
like
there
are,
unfortunately,
far
more
events
that
happen
in
the
US
that's
outside
of
the
US.
So
I
think
then
it
ends
up
skewing
more
towards
developers
that
live
in
America
being
able
to
attend.
American
events
or
I
mean
I
know
that
there
are
many
conferences
that
happen
in
other
were
countries,
but
that
seems
to
be
the
case.
D
A
A
G
A
C
A
A
Okay,
so
we
have
two
requests
for
funds
for
the
same
thing.
So
if
you
number
150
an
issue,
number
145,
so
first
they're
both
to
send
individuals
to
cozen,
learn
at
node,
interactive,
North,
America
Austin
in
a
whiz
that
that's
late,
November,
oh
it's
a
relative
ever
in
November
and
it's
for
Anna
henningsen
from
from
Germany
and
rich
trot
from
san
fran.
So
the
only
question
I
have
here
is:
is
the
1500
connect
cover
Anna.
G
Yeah,
it's
a
pretty
long
amount
of
time.
I
think
that
the
thinking
with
the
1500
was
that
you
know
traditional
conferences
are
one
or
two
days
and
that's
about
what
the
hotel
and
flight
would
be
domestically,
but
because
the
conference
is
two
days
and
then
code
learn
is
today's
special,
the
stuff
around
it.
It's
just
accommodations
really
stack
up.
J
I
guess
it
will
be
around
the
same.
I
can
tell
for
sure
I
I
actually
would
be
fine
with
like
I'm
not
staying
at
the
hotel,
where
it's
supposed
to
happen
by
the
conference's.
If
that
like
brings
down
the
cost
quite
a
bit
which
I
imagine
it
would
but
yeah
like
1800
to
two
thousand
dollars
might
be
okay,.
F
G
G
A
G
K
G
A
I
So,
in
the
case
of
other
overages,
if
someone
needs
to
request
more,
for
whatever
reason
do
we
can,
I
need
to
have
this
discussion
again
to
change
the
cap
or
wood,
or
is
there
like
some
way
for
people
to
request
above
the
Catholic
League?
Is
there
a
mechanism
for
that,
or
could
we
create
a
mechanism
for
that
now,
you're
asking
for
an
exemption
basically
from
the
cap,
I
think.
G
A
I
E
A
We'll
do
the
pull
request
to
remove
that
line
on
them,
so
they
can
be.
We
can
just
proved
that
separately,
but
in
terms
of
both
of
these
requests,
do
does
anyone,
okay,
let's
in
terms
of
a
vote,
anyone
here
not
or
anyone
not
agree
with
a
spend
of
up
to
two
thousand
for
rich
and
up
to
3,000
for
that
for
honor.
A
A
A
A
A
C
A
A
A
K
A
That's
simply
the
default
lessons,
so
the
there's
two
questions
there
is
where
the
nerdcore
should
move
to
it,
Apache
in
some
way
and
then
there's
whether
we
should
change
our
default
license
for
projects
in
the
orchestra.
Patchy
too.
That's
not
been
done
yet.
So
we're
stick
with
MIT.
If
we
want
to
change
Ellen
owed
like
that's
completely
up
to
us
or
the
maintains
of
that
repo
in
the
photo.
G
Also,
we
we
have
an
exception
for
a
bunch
of
licenses
if
they
move
into
the
org
after
being
started
somewhere
else.
So
pretty
much
any
permissive
license
is
fine,
like
I,
think
bsd,
apache
MIT.
Everything
is
fine
because
we
don't
want
to
force
license
changes
when
things
move
into
the
foundation,
so
we're
good
either
way.
We
don't
need
to
do
a
change.
Ok,.
A
A
A
G
A
Know
like
I
kind
of
agree,
but
the
way
I
like
and
I
can
imagine
this
working
is
that
the
the
the
TS,
the
combined
tsc
could
set
up
an
administrative
sub
committee
that
handles
the
same
kind
of
stuff
that
we're
dealing
with
you.
So
it
just
says:
okay
for
the
purpose
of
administrative
work,
we're
going
to
push
that
into
a
sub
community.
That
does
it
does
that
work
and
reports
back
to
us,
and
then
that
subcommittee
would
do
what
we're
doing
here.
A
It's
I
we
do,
it
is
I
think
the
issue
is
right
in
that
we
descend.
The
discussion
is
right
in
that
the
confusion
is
not
helpful
and
it's
we
haven't
figured
it
out
to
the
point
where
it
makes
any
sense
so
doing
something
about
it
is
right,
but
being
able
to
make
administrative
decisions
effectively
and
efficiently
is
the
the
biggest
concern.
B
I
Yeah
so
kind
of
piggybacking
off
of
that
I
think
it's
a
good
point,
you
as
a
thought
experiment.
We
had
these
funding
boats
for
travel.
You
know
what
would
that
look
like
it.
You
know
in
as
a
new
world
where
there's
a
single
entity
with
the
subcommittee.
You
know
with
the
pool
ctc
aryl
nu
TI
tsc
need
to
vote
on
those
issues
and
does
it
make
sense
to
have
them
do
so?
I.
B
Mean
like
the
option
is
like
if
we
invite
someone
to
the
CTC
or
tsc,
we
like
invite
them
to
both
and
then,
if
they're
like
well,
I,
don't
really
want
to
deal
with
like
administrative
issues.
They
they
don't
come
on
to
the
tsc
and
if
they
they're
like
I,
don't
really
want
to
deal
with
technical
issues.
They
don't
go
on
to
the
CDC
or
they
go
on
to
both.
You
know
no.
A
I,
I
I'm
thinking
more
along
those
lines
as
well
that
that
it's
almost
like
an
open-door
policy
across
the
across
both
that
people
that
will
self
select
and
we
have
some
sort
of
mechanism
where
they
can
move
at
point
in
time,
not
just
any
time
they
want.
But
maybe
we
have
a
process
where
they
could
say.
A
Okay,
you
know
I've
been
doing
the
CTC
thing
for
a
while
I'd
like
to
start
getting
involved
in
tsc
I
put
up
my
hand,
and
we
have
you
know
just
a
vote
to
quickly
move
them
on,
but
it's
an
expectation.
If
they
put
up
their
hand,
then
they
get
to
come
on,
but
we
also
need
the
reverse.
We're
okay,
you've
been
on
the
tsc
list.
You've
not
attended
any
meetings.
A
Can
you
you
know,
let's,
let's
do
a
removal
as
well
so
so
make
it
so
that
the
CTC
individuals
can
be
just
as
involved,
but
only
those
that
are
actually
going
to
show
up
and
do
it
and
be
interested
in
doing
that.
Work.
But
I
think
I
raised
this
in
another
issue,
which
is
the
charter
one
which
is
connecting
having
him
having
a
way
to
connect
the
two
groups
much
more
closely,
so
they
don't
diverge
and
then
that
would
solve
it.
I
think
so.
D
Could
combine
what
you
talked
about
before
in
terms
of
making
it
a
subcommittee,
but
a
subcommittee
authorized
to
make
the
decision
and
then
do
you
know
what
you
just
discussed
with
you
know?
People
were
interested,
they
can
move
on
to
it,
but
you
know
you
basically
have
it
so
that
that
subgroup
is
authorized
to
take
the
votes
as
opposed
to
having
to
get
the
whole
CTC
involved.
G
Yeah,
so
there's
a
couple
ways
of
structure
right
like
if
you
do
the
subgroup
thing,
you
can
say:
look
we're
delegating
a
lot
of
responsibility
here.
I
think
that
for
some
of
this
stuff,
don't
like
some
of
these
issues,
certain
members
want
to
pop
into
and
out
of
and
having
it
be,
this
kind
of
formalized
subgroup
makes
it
difficult
for
them
to
do
that,
and
and
in
some
cases
we
actually
do
want
that
input.
A
That
I
think
we
can
separate
that
problem
out
and
let
the
CTC
experiment
with
rotating
meeting
times
for
a
while
and
see
how
that
goes
and
make
it
call
on
that,
because
perhaps
it
doesn't
actually
make
sense.
Perhaps
the
experience
will
tell
us
this
is
not.
This
is
making
us
worse
at
maintenance,
maintenance,
Asians,
the.
D
Other
approach
is
also
that
you
might
try
handling.
You
know
you
could
say,
though
you
either
have
to
vote
through
the
issue
in
advance
or
be
at
the
meeting,
and
it's
going
to
be
a
quorum
of
the
people
who
have
voted
at
the
meeting
and
advance
so
you're,
not
excluding
those
people
who
want
to
both,
but
they
have
to
actually
do
it.
So,
if
they're
not
going
to
show
up
to
the
meeting,
they
have
to
do
it,
you
know
so
far.
G
I've
seen
that
work
about
half
of
the
time
like
about
half
of
the
time
like
people
will
vote
on
the
issue
or
address
something
in
the
issue
and
then
even
if
they
don't
make
it
to
the
meeting,
that's
essentially
the
way
that
it
goes
but
half
the
time.
It
goes
the
other
way
and
then
you
know
there's
a
consensus
on
the
call
that
we
should
move
in
this
direction.
But
there
are
lagging.
You
know,
votes
against
that
aren't
in
the
meeting
and
then
you
just
came
forward
in
the
issue
is
stuck.
L
We
have
to
announce
that
you're
gonna
make
a
vote
if
you're
not
going
to
count
on
quorum
rules,
because
otherwise
you
know
we,
you
know
if
three
people
show
up
in
a
meeting
and
everybody
else
at
a
conference.
They
can,
you
know,
theoretically
at
least
make
up
every
decision
that
comes
on
up
in
your
mind.
Right
so
I,
don't
know
you
think
you
can
get
rid
of
the
Quorum
rules
unless
you
set
different
rules,
unlike
when
a
vote
should
be
proposed.
D
G
Okay,
that's
what
we've
been
doing
so
far
and
I
think
that
the
few
times
that's
happened.
It's
not
a
big
deal
to
wait.
You
know
an
extra
week
and
in
fact
we
even
had
like
I,
remember
being
on
an
issue
where,
like
somebody
got
held
up
a
week
and
then
the
person
wasn't
in
the
next
meeting
either,
so
we
just
move
forward
with
it
right
so
informally.
That's
kind
of
how
we're
dealing
with
this.
G
I
Know
what
I
would
hope
we
would
do
whenever
there
are
people
were
objections
and
issues,
and
we're
going
to
go
to
a
vote
in
a
meeting.
Is
that
we
reach
out
to
you
know
those
individuals
ahead
of
time
saying
like
hey,
you
know
we
really
need
a
vote
on
this
in
this
one
specific
meeting.
Can
you
make
it
and
maybe
I'm,
making
some
accommodations
to
make
sure
that
they
can
get
in
there
I
get
into
the
meeting?
You
know
if
this
is
an
important
voice.
I
Who's
been,
you
know,
objecting
or
has
concerns
in
github
itself,
any
life.
So
it's
going
to
have
to
miss
two
meetings
in
a
row,
any
other,
an
airport
for
the
conversation
you
know.
Maybe
that
would
be
a
good
time
to
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
break
the
normal
schedule
of
how
we
rotate
meeting
times,
because
of
this
one
instance
yeah.
Okay,
now
is:
can
it
be
flexible
in
that
regard
to
yeah.
A
G
Yeah
and
I
mean
just
for
the
record
like
with
even
with
all
of
these
problems.
I
would
still
probably
prefer
a
split
agenda
rather
than
a
split
membership
and
not
creating
another
subcommittee,
just
because
I
do
think
that
having
people
be
able
to
float
in
and
out
of
the
administrative
stuff
based
on
their
interest
is,
is
a
little
bit
better
than
you
know,
requiring
people
to
make
it
a
huge
upfront
commitment
to
all
of
the
administrative
issues.
Sorry.
D
G
Yeah,
I
think
that,
like
you
know,
we
shouldn't
write
down
an
official
quorum
rule,
but
we'll
get
into
the
habit
of
you
know.
This
is
how
many
people
are
usually
here
and
and
especially
because
we
have
the
amount
of
time
before
it
where
people
are
discussing
the
issue
when
people
are
clearly
engaged
in
the
issue
and
normally
in
a
meeting,
and
they
missed
it
or
something
well,
we'll
know
to
to
come
back
to
it
or
trying
to
get
more
of
their
employer.
Would
yeah.
A
I
think,
if
something
is
coming
up
for
a
vote,
we
need
to
be
more
smoke,
will
end
up
needing
to
be
more
strict
about
at
the
the
lead
time
for
announcing
that,
like
I
I
put
that
stuff
on
the
agenda
for
voting
for
the
travel
stuff,
I
put
that
on
less
than
24
hours
for
this
meeting,
I
was
just
like
it
was
less
than
12
hours
ago.
I
put
I
tag
them
at
the
agenda
and
I
posted
the
agenda
even
that
that
little
time
ago,
and
that
wouldn't
be
acceptable.
A
If
we
have
a
larger
membership
where
people
can
opt
in
and
out
of
voting,
it
would
have
to
be
a
longer
lead
time
where
they
have
time
to
look
at
it
and
engage
similar
to
the
way
we
have
the
the
rules
for
reviewing
patches
into
core.
There
has
to
be
enough
time
for
people
to
have
seen
them
and
object.
You
can't
just
slip
things
by
quickly,
so
that's
that
would
have
to
be
more
formalized.
I
Yeah,
like
the
idea
of
codifying
that
I'm
similar
to
pull
request
and
we
can
even
kind
of
viewed
it
as
being
you
know,
analogous
to
a
pull
request
in
a
lot
of
ways.
It's
something
we
could
also
look
into
in
the
future.
It's
you
know
once
we
have
these
rules
for,
like
you
know,
she's
have
to
be
posted
so
far
in
advance
and
things
if
we
still
have
an
issue
with
you
know,
just
getting
a
quorum.
I
We'd
also
consider
maybe
some
mechanism
of
saying
that
you
know
if
you
haven't
voiced
an
opinion
inside
of
the
issue,
and
you
don't
show
up
to
the
meeting
you
know.
Basically,
you
know
a
person
has
been
completely
silent
on
the
issue,
then
maybe
that
automatically
gets
counted
as
an
abstaining
vote
or
something
yeah,
provided
that,
like
you,
know,
there's
plenty
of
lead
time
and
people
are
aware
and
other
things
if
it
becomes
an
issue,
may
be
long
yeah.
Maybe
we
are
overthinking
in
LA.
D
A
A
I
think
that
the
more
you
know
different
kinds
of
opinions
we
have
in
there
the
better,
but
if
we're
combining
TSE
nctc
them
we're
also
expanding
the
type
of
people
that
go
on
and
if
we
did
move
ahead
with,
this
I'd
probably
want
to
nominate
William
and
Josh
as
well
to
be
on
that
combined
group,
and
then
we've
also
got
Brian
here
as
well.
So
that's
three
additional
people
that
that
I
would
hope
would
getting
to
that
combined
group.
It's
a
very
large
group.
There
might
be
objections
to
simply
expanding
the
group.
A
They
have
been
objections
before
whenever
I've
suggested
individuals,
you
know,
aren't
we
getting
gb
so
we'd
have
to
be
comfortable
with
adding
individuals
that
are
not
necessarily
technically
involved.
Deeply
involved
to
the
combined
group
and
we'd
have
to
also
be
comfortable
with
that
decision,
making
process
of.
If,
if
you
don't
show
up
to
the
meeting,
you
don't
you
know,
you're
not
involved
in
the
discussion
or
if
you
don't
express
an
interest,
then
you're
not
involved
in
voting.
That
would
have
to
go
the
other
way
as
well.
A
So
the
individuals
that
want
to
mainly
focus
on
the
administrative
stuff
basically
opt
out
of
the
technical
stuff
and
that
doesn't
really
affect
quorum
rules
in
some
way.
So
it
would
work
both
ways
right,
yeah,
but
the
size
thing
I
see
is
a
potential
problem
for
moving
forward
here,
because
there's
actually
a
couple
more
individuals.
That
would
be
ideal
for
the
CTC
as
well.
That
I
wouldn't
mind
proposing.
G
Oh
I
mean
I
think
that
the
CDC
has
actually
done
a
very
good
job
of
expanding
membership
in
terms
of
like
pulling
in
other
skill
sets
the
around
core.
So
I
think
you
know
expanding
the
Charter
some
more
to
take
on
the
tsc
administrative
stuff
will
probably
go
over
well
now
that
that's
kind
of
bizarre
charter
also
just
keep
in
mind
that
we're
still
going
to
have
the
tsc
repo
and
most
of
the
administrative
stuff
will
happen
there.
So
there's
still
a
very
easy
way
for
all
members
to
sort
of
segment.
A
A
A
A
A
The
other
one
was
the
oh,
my
god,
I've
skipped
forward
here.
Mr.
halogen
rotem
the
scope
of
responsibility
for
the
tsc
item.
It's
the
same
one,
but
I
did
make
a
little
bit
of
progress
on
that.
That
is,
oh
yeah.
Let's
try
and
get
that
wrapped
up
fairly
soon
I'll
get
back
into
github
and
respond
to
those
comments
there
and
see
if
we
can
make
it
acceptable
for
for
merging
and
then
maybe
next
week
we
can
actually
have
a
vote
on
that.
So
please
engage
in
that
one.
A
G
G
G
Think
that
the
issue
is
really
stalled
out,
because
it's
trying
to
talk
about
a
few
different
things.
I
think
that
we
should
probably
break
up
the
issue
into
a
couple
things
that
we
can
make
from
our
decisions
on
like.
So
what
for
one
thing
like
can?
Can
we
all
agree
that
the
node
project
proper
should
take
on
responsibility
for
version
managing
node,
and
once
we
say
that,
then
we
can
say:
okay
well,
there's
this
version
manager
that
many
many
people
use.
G
We
should
probably
take
some
responsibility
for
it,
even
if
it's
not
perfect
and
take
that
and
potentially
take
in
other
ones.
If
we
need
to
work
whatever
like
taking
taking
responsibility
for
this
problem,
it's
going
to
be
relatively
large,
but
yeah
I
would
like
to
see
that
start
to
move
forward,
because
a
lot
of
people
are
kind
of
just
waiting
on
it.
Right
now,.
A
Yeah
I
think
what
we
can
do,
then,
is
this
the
the
pull
request
at
144,
which
is
the
scope
of
responsibility?
If
we
get
that
merged,
then
a
change
to
that
would
be
somebody
putting
poor
request
entail.
We
think
that
the
scope
should
include
this
thing,
the
version
managing
thing,
and
then
we
can
discuss
that
as
a
separate
issue.
M
M
G
G
A
J
H
G
A
So
the
the
two
things
that
holding
this
up
is
is
one
getting
the
the
scope
thing
thought
it
out,
and
the
other
is
additional
movements
in
the
open
source
foundation
space
that
may
impact
this,
that
we
can't
talk
about
publicly
yet,
but
that
I
think
after
that,
after
we
get
that
PR
merged
and
there's
a
more
public
announcement,
sorry
to
be
cryptic
that
it
will
become
much
more
clear.
What
we're
going
to
do
here,
we'll
be
able
to
say
yes,
this
belongs
here
or
no
we're
not
comfortable
with
it
or
it
belongs
somewhere
else.
A
A
A
A
A
Okay,
let's
head
into
a
public
Q&A
time,
we've
got
a
few
minutes
left.
So
if
you're
listening
to
the
live
stream-
and
you
have
questions
or
comments
for
us-
please
drop
them
in
YouTube
chat
or
the
issue
in
the
tsc
rope
repo.
For
with
this
meeting
or
on
the
IRC,
where
you
can
find
most
of
us,
we
will
pause
for
a
minute
or
so,
while
we
catch
up
with
the
stream.
B
G
Yeah,
we
basically
have
like
a
default
governance
process.
That's
like
much
lighter
weight
than
the
one
that
we
actually
use,
but
basically
has
all
the
same
principles
embedded
in
it
and
I
wrote
like
a
giant
medium
post.
That
was
very
detailed
about
like
why
each
of
those
steps
and
that
kind
of
stuff,
that's
what
I
remember.
A
B
B
A
So
that's
simply
we're
looking
at
changing
our
our
our
default
as
specified
in
our
policies
for
new
projects.
Spinning
up
in
side,
the
no
Jess
org
we're
looking
at
changing
that
from
the
MIT
license
to
Apache
to
we're
waiting
from
explicit
feedback
from
our
legal
committee
about
that.
But
the
understanding
on
our
end
is
that
Apache
to
puts
us
in
a
better
position
to
protect
against
patent
claims
against
contributions
and
usage
of
code
in
a
repository.
A
It's
also
possible
that
the
node.js
project
may
be
in
for
a
license
change.
But
given
the
difficulty
of
that
I,
don't
imagine
that'll
be
anytime
soon
and
the
outcome
of
that
might
not
look
so
straightforward.
It
could
be
dual
licensed
in
some
way
where
new
code
is
under
one
license
and
alt
code
is
under
no
license.
But
that's
like
there'll,
be
a
plenty
of
heads
up
for
that.
If
it
does
happen
at
all.
A
We're
not
at
all
about
that's
the
thing
that
we're
not
first,
that
we're
not
actually
convinced
that
apache2
is
the
right
way
to
go,
even
though
we
are,
we've
heard
signals
that
it
is
so
we
just
need
confirmation
that,
yes,
this
is
a
better
license
for
company
us
and
two
we're
not
convinced
about
their
way
forward
with
node.
We
are
concerned
about
the
pattern
problem
with
node
ended
up
we're
not
covering
that's.
A
Why
we
had
the
discussion
about
the
CCL,
a
like
the
corporate
contributor
license
agreement
and
apache
to
may
be
a
way
of
solving
that,
but
exactly
how
to
pull
it
off
and
whether
the
pain
of
doing
that
is
worth
it
is
totally
up
for
discussion
and
I
suspect
will
be
a
very
difficult
discussion.
So
it's
it's
totally
on
the
table,
not
not
yet
formally
being
considered
just
their.