►
From YouTube: Node.js Technical Steering Committee meeting
Description
A
Hello
and
welcome
to
the
noches
foundation
technical
steering
committee
meeting
on
June
20th
in
3018.
We
don't
have
any
announcements
for
this
week,
so,
let's
jump
right
into
the
agenda.
The
first
item
is
an
OG
is
built
its
issue,
one
three,
three:
seven
requests
for
elevated
permissions;
Joey
you
added
that
to
the
agenda.
Do
you
want
to
summarize
and
require.
B
So
right
now
they,
since
they
are
both
collaborators,
they
have
write
access
to
the
to
repo.
They
would
need
an
admin
sx2,
those
two
repos
to
set
up
web
hooks
and
secrets
and
stuff
in
order
to
get
the
automation
to
work.
Also
things
like
so
there
are
five
people
in
the
info
coop
of
the
working
group
Demmings.
B
Those
five
people
can
access
the
informations
that
we
use
to
build
releases
and
stuff,
but
they're
not
usually
around
or
not
predictably
around
so
right
now,
most
of
the
time,
John
and
Revell
handle
most
of
the
requests
to
the
build
working
group,
but
they
are
not
in
the
infant
group.
So
sometimes
we
will
need
to
wait
for
people
in
the
infant
group
to
appear
to
actually
perform
the
operations
required
to
get
stuff
back
on
track.
Like
the
last
week.
B
So
one
suggestion
was
to
seek
help
from
the
Foundation's
legal
committee
to
like,
like
set
up
a
contract
or
like
agreement
to
guarantee
that
people
who
have
access
to
the
machine
will
sign
those
agreements
and
promised
that
they
would
not
do
anything
harmful
to
the
infrastructure
or
we
would
probably
need
to
figure
something
out
if
the
legal
stuff
cannot
happen
like
ASAP,
but
but
the
situation
is,
we
would
need
people
to
be
able
to
do
this.
Is
that?
Because,
right
now,
it's
not
very
working
for
us.
A
Okay,
thanks
for
the
summary
and
first
of
all
tons
of
things
to
make
lava
and
Refik
for
the
work
they
put
in
and
to
the
other
group.
Members
should
do
this
and
rod
had
these
very
valid
security
concerns.
It's
not
that
we
don't
trust
you
per
se.
It's
just.
We
really
have
to
watch
out
for
all
the
users
we
have
I
this
time
zone
doesn't
work
for
rod,
so
he
can't
make
it
through
this
meaning
he's
it's
a
little
off
tonight,
but
I
think
rich.
C
C
A
D
Things
I
think
are
worth
mentioning
on
this.
One
is
bond
ability,
so
the
majority
of
people
who
currently
have
access
worked
for
foundation
like
companies
that
are
sponsoring
the
foundation
or
in
roles
where
their
job
is
like
part
of
their
job.
Duties
are
being
responsible
for
this
work,
and
it's
not
to
say
that
we
don't
want
volunteers
who
are
not
paid
to
be
open-source
doing
this,
but
more
that,
like
there's
kind
of
a
trust
factor
that
gets
introduced
by
that.
D
D
Let
me
know
if
this
is
really
not
going
to
work
out,
but
it
sounds
to
me
like
there's
just
there's,
there's
a
handful
of
pain,
points
about
specific
duties
or
specific
things
that
people
wanted
to
do
like,
for
example,
like
relaunching
the
website,
so
I
think
the
website
is
a
really
good
example
of
something
that
doesn't
need
to
be
on
our
highest
tier
of
private
infrastructure.
The
only
thing
that
really
needs
to
be
on
that
high
level
of
infrastructure
are
our
assets
for
downloads.
So
it
sounds
to
me
like.
D
B
So
we
had
a
meeting
yesterday
about
some
projects
we
are
going
to
do
for
the
build,
and
your
Phil
mentioned
that
he
is
working
on
some
specific,
like
scripted,
RM
or
like,
like
scripted
tasks
that
people
can
trigger
without
direct
access
to
the
machines.
So
if
he
can
like
get
those
stuff
deployed,
that
was
somewhat
solve
the
issue
because
then
people,
but
not
actually
have
to
attach
into
the
machines,
do
to
the
job.
C
Discussion
in
the
issue
around
yeah,
can
we
figure
out?
Is
there
some
smaller
like?
Is
there
something
that
makes
sense,
that's
less
than
the
full
access
in
the
short
term
to
help
remove
the
key
pain
points.
I,
don't
think,
we've
come
to
a
way,
I,
don't
think
we
found
anything.
Yet
that's
like
yeah,
okay.
We
just
give
this
and
that
helps.
But
it's
trying
to
get
the
discussion
around
that
going
as
well.
E
A
A
A
A
F
F
Handle
infrastructure,
I,
guess
they're
in
no
guess
that
makes
it
this.
Well,
it's
already
hard
to
be
debug,
because
the
other
one
now
not
hardly
bug
hard
to
inspect,
and
so
now
these
things
don't
show
up
in
process
active
handles
anymore,
and
so
you
can't
actually
get
at
timers
anymore
without
having
set
up
async
hooks,
basically
from
the
start
of
your
application,
which
is
kind
of
problematic
for
some
inspection
tools
such
as
some
stuff
that
we
have
a
note
source.
A
I
think
those
are
good
points
to
have
in
writing
on
the
core
requests.
I
can
definitely
see
both
sides
getting
a
pull
request
in
and
not
requiring
extra
work
and
not
landing
poor
requests
if
they
do
require
extra
work,
but
if
we
have
it
in
writing,
it's
a
bit
easier
to
people
for
people
to
weigh
in.
E
C
C
F
That's
what
was
actually
going
to
happen,
but
we'd,
rather
that
something
like
that
actually
works,
because
for
what
we
would
like
to
do,
a
Seng
cooks,
a
induces
more
overhead
and
B-
doesn't
really
work
for
getting
full
handle
information
at
any
time,
because
you
can't
actually
keep
that
anywhere.
Your
resources
will
not
be
G
seed,
so.
F
F
F
E
E
F
A
So
I'm
wondering
if
the
consumers
of
the
internal
API,
if
they
have
the
resources
and
the
time
to
help
with
this
I,
don't
want
a
PR
to
be
blocked
forever.
And
it's
a
lot
to
expect
to
ask
somebody
to
fix
an
API
that
you're
the
main
consumer
off.
Is
it
possible
that
you
help
Jeremiah
or
that
somebody
else
helps.
C
C
F
A
G
A
C
A
C
I
just
see
like
there's
no
rush,
don't
overcommit!
You
know,
people
are
wait,
fine
waiting
a
few
days,
so
I
think
maybe
we
could,
and
that
was
like
five
or
six
days
so
I'm
assuming
that
was
be
since
we
last
spoke
about
it
and.
D
A
D
So
let
me
just
double
check
my
calendar
really
quickly.
Our
next
board
meeting
is
next
Monday
I.
Currently,
don't
have
anything
major
on
the
agenda.
For
that
do
people
have
anything
they
want
brought
to
the
board.
Are
there
things
that
we
need
done
as
far
as
I
know?
You
know
just
to
remind
people
on
the
TSC
brief.
Oh,
there
is
a
project
board
for
items
to
discuss
with
the
board.
We
have
nothing
in
progress.
We
have
no
proposed
charter
changes.
We
have
the
Whig
participation
policy.
I.
D
Yeah
I'll
drop
the
it's
another
TSE
issue:
I'll
drop
it
in
the
in
the
tracker,
yeah
yeah
other
than
that.
Unless
anyone
has
other
things
for
me
to
bring
to
the
board,
he
doesn't
seem
like
there's
any
direct
requests
from
the
TSE
at
the
moment
that
I'll
come
back
after
that
meeting
with
a
report
about
what
was
discussed
in
the
public
session.
D
A
D
We've
had
some
movement
such
as,
for
example,
the
opening
of
the
import
meta
require
pull
request,
which
has
some
controversy
on
it.
If
people
want
to
drop
in
and
take
a
look,
that
would
be
appreciated,
but
we're
mostly
kind
of
getting
to
the
point
where
we're
putting
together
different
high-level
proposals
of
like
a
combination
of
features
and
what
workflows
that
creates
or
doesn't
allow
and
I
think
we're
getting
closer.
C
A
Cool
notes:
it
is
at
the
end
of
July
in
San
Francisco
that.
B
So
the
majority
of
the
errors
without
codes
left
in
this
first
land
are
the
crypto
errors
and
I
plan
to
work
on.
That's
like
soon
cuz
I'm
planning
to
add
beginning
supports
to
crypto,
and
that
would
touch
most
off
the
validation
code.
They're
vetted
I
shouldn't
cut
it
yeah,
so
probably
going
to
work
on
that
together.
So,
okay.
C
I
D
D
Gus
is
gonna,
be
going
to
the
tc39
meeting
coming
up
and
representing
node
I
personally
will
not
be
at
the
next
meeting.
There's
some
good
conversation
happening
in
the
issue
that
was
mentioned
earlier
about
our
participation
on
what
working
group.
That's
all
that
we
have
to
report
at
the
moment,
cool.
A
Thank
you
guys
for
representing
nodejs
at
tc39,
okay,
that
was
all
the
strategic
initiatives
and
we
have
another
issue
on
the
agenda
and,
as
a
proposal
add
on
new
core
modules
on
the
scope
too
late
for
HTTP
2.
That
is
new
GCSE
issues,
3
8
9
and
they
weren't
any
update
since
last
week.
So
I'm
not
sure
if
we
need
to
discuss
it,
3
8,
9.