►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/118
* 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)
* Josh Gavant - https://github.com/joshgav (Observer/Microsoft)
* William Kapke - https://github.com/williamkapke (Observer)
A
A
A
D
A
D
E
Well,
I'll
just
say
that
I,
you
know,
had
a
chance
to
do
much,
TS
simulated,
just
being
catching
up
with
core
and
windows
issues,
but
fortunately
we
have
more
resources,
not
on
our
team
to
the
window
between
those
issues
so
I'm
hoping
that
icons
spend
a
little
bit
of
over
my
time.
I'm
tsc
refute
is
going
forward.
A
A
B
D
F
B
F
B
E
D
G
B
D
G
So
the
way
that
I
do
it
in
Saints,
reliables
I,
actually
just
go
to
plus
google
com
first
like
just
go
to
Google
Plus
page,
and
you
can
switch
there
between
accounts
and
it's
pretty
obvious
there
and
then
kind
of
once
you
navigate
from
there
it
kind
of
hangs
around.
Well,
that's
what
I
found
anyways
okay.
D
G
D
D
A
D
G
G
C
C
Also
I
was
going
to
add
for
stand-up
I've
shared
the
calendar
I've
been
using
to
keep
track
of
all
the
meetings
with
josh
and
josh
has
been
adding
a
few
things
on
there.
It's
just
a
personal
calendar
of
mine,
so
we're
collaborating
and
making
those
available.
I
was
the
little
progress
on
that
one
killer.
F
C
G
Yeah
I
think
I've
calendar
would
be
really
useful
too.
We
do
want
to
make
sure
that
whatever
we
pick
is.
Some
is
a
technology,
a
tool
that
works
kind
of
like
cross
ecosystem.
You
know
a
lot
of
people
use
a
little,
but
not
everyone
does
so
be
nice.
If
we
could
find
something
that
would
also
work
in
you
know
the
microsoft
ecosystem
and
I
think
Yahoo's
got
one
too.
A
Okay,
let's,
let's
move
on
good
discussion.
A
D
D
Yeah
they're,
so
basically,
there
was
a
few
comments
by
nebris
and
just
tightening
up
the
language.
A
little
bit
I
think
to
go
one.
One
of
them
was
around
I've
said
you
know,
code
and
doc,
making
sure
that
it
was
more
generic
general.
So
we
weren't
excluding
anything
from
in
terms
of
you,
know
what
we
had
to
scope
over
in
the
repositories
and
the
other
comment
was
around
in
terms
of
the
processes.
D
D
E
D
Once
it's
in,
like
we
shouldn't
basically
that,
in
conjunction
with
the
other
lines,
basically
you're
saying
you
know,
once
we
have
projects
that
are
in
we're
free
to
control
anything
that
goes
in
and
out
of
them.
But
if
we're
going
to
move
an
existing
project
in
or
create
a
new
project,
those
are
times
where
we
may
consult
with
the
board.
D
D
E
E
D
E
E
C
I
was
hoping
to
get
some
clarification
on
the
the
action
item
here.
So
number
issue
number
84
was
created
by
rod
after
a
board
meeting
where
they
had
asked
that
the
tsc
defines
node
core
I
did
a
little
sanity
checking
with
the
few
people
in
the
community
to
see
if
I
was
losing
my
mind.
So
when
I
hear
note
core
I,
think
CTC,
and
that
was
some
confusion
and
there's
language
out
there.
That
says
you
know
note
core
is
managed
by
CTC.
C
This
has
now
to
a
few
different
iterations
has
turned
into
a
TSE
scope,
markdown
document,
which
then
seems
like
conflicting
with
the
TSE
charter,
which
has
a
scope
section.
So
I'm
just
unsure,
if
which
we're
defining
it
for
defining
TSE
scope
or
what
note
core
is
a.
A
A
This
concept
of
the
umbrella
program
was
brought
in,
which
was
originally
conceived
as
a
way
to
bring
in
lots
of
other
projects
that
weren't
related
to
know
call,
and
that's
partly
why
the
TSE
even
exists
as
a
separate
group
from
the
CTC
just
to
be
able
to
manage
extra
stuff,
but
it
became
apparent
that
there
was
very
little
appetite
within
our
group
to
actually
pursue
that,
and
also
the
board
reacted
a
bit
negatively
to
that
idea.
They
wanted
us
to
be
much
more
concerned
about
no
core,
so
this
question
of
autonomy
camer.
A
What
is
you
know,
we're
given
autonomy
over
technical
decisions,
but
exactly
what
scope
is
that
for
what
it
was,
the
scope
of
that
autonomy
is
is
left
undefined.
So
it's
partly
about
doing
that,
and
one
of
them
get
to
hear
was
getting
the
board
to
accept
the
forget.
The
the
mission
statement
that
we
worked
on
that
is
still
floating
around.
A
That
has
not
been
accepted,
and
one
of
the
main
block
is
there
is
that
it
says
that
we
are
concerned
about
no
core
and
they
they
said
that
we
don't
have
a
clear
definition
of
no
course,
so
that
was
one
of
the
main
things
that
I
was
trying
to
get
to
with
this.
This
whole
activity
here
and
I
think
not
I.
Think
that
sorry.
B
Things
they
come
up
with
ac/dc,
which
these
cds
is
perhaps
less
interested
in
like,
but
I
don't
know
like
patents.
Kind
of
stuff
for
mpm
is
that
the
kind
of
stuff
that
would
that
did
tia
like
people
that
want
to
handle
that
can
come
to
the
tsc
or
does
that,
in
other
words,
to
the
tsc
in
CT
t,
be
complimentary.
Body's
working
on
similar
things.
Just
with
the
one
is
more
of
a
project
management
focus
and
one
is
the
core
developers.
Yeah.
A
So
the
original,
the
original
way
that
the
split
was
Frank.
When
we
first
heard
the
discussion
about
it
was
actually
simply
about
having
two
separate
meetings,
not
two
separate
bodies.
It
was
about
having
a
an
organizational
administrative,
focused
meeting
and
a
technical
focused,
meaning
that's
how
we
originally
started
doing
this
and
then,
when
this
umbrella
thing
came
up,
it
was.
A
It
was
decided
to
split
the
group's
in
half
and
I,
actually
and
I.
Keep
on
saying
this
across
github,
but
I
think
we're
in
this
really
awkward
limbo,
where
we
don't
have
a
clear
picture
as
to
why
we
even
have
the
split
and
who
goes
in
what
and
what
gets,
what
work
stuff
we're
be
forced
and
and
the
constant
source
of
of
private,
of
problems
I.
A
A
member
of
what
and
like
I
said
in
the
in
the
issue
for
today,
there's
there's
extra
people
on
this
ctc
who
are
not
here,
who
I
actually
think
could
be
really
valuable
for
the
kind
of
work
that
we
do
here,
but
we
they
don't
have
membership
because
we
created
a
separate
group
and
we
haven't
figured
out
why
we
exist.
So
so
there's
this
there's
two
things
here.
One
of
them
is
that
I
want
to
get
the
board
to
accept
a
mission
statement.
That
is
clear
and
it
says
what
we're
doing
why
we
even
exist.
A
We
don't
have
that
and
we
need
that
and
and
one
step
to
doing,
that
is
to
give
them
a
thing
on
a
platter
that
says
here's
what
mode
call
means-
and
you
know
what
we
think
that
means,
and
so,
when
the
mission
statement
refers
to
know
core,
you
can
look
at
this
and
then
the
other
step
is
actually
saying
what.
Why
does
this?
How
does
this
structure
work
that
we
have
where
we
have
this
autonomy
over
the
technical
stuff
in
there,
and
we
do
this
technical
activity?
A
How
does
that
actually
work?
The
way
that
the
the
PR
has
emerged,
Michael
Stanley,
is
more
about
purely
about
the
autonomy
bit
that
we
have
autonomy
over
this
area,
but
still
would
like
it
to
be
usable,
as
this
is
what
node
call
is
and
so
yeah
it's
a
little
bit
mixed
up.
But
there's
a
couple
of
broad
goals:
they're
mean.
D
A
Yeah,
a
bit
of
both
I
do
have
a
discussion
of
the
ball.
What
about
I
wanted
to
get
them
to
accept
that
there
is
only
one
tsc
for
the
foundation,
because
the
the
bylaws
are
kind
of
messy
and
they
do
have
this
little
clause
in
there.
That
allows
the
board
to
speed
up
an
alternative,
TSE
or
multiple
tses
to
manage
multiple
technical
things.
A
A
We
we
need
to
define
our
scope
so
that
they
have
more
confidence
in
us
and
the
way
we
execute
like.
We
really
need
to
build
that
confidence
with
the
board
to
say
right:
we've
got
autonomy
here
and
we
exercised
this
technical
stuff
and
we
do
it
well
really
have
a
clear
idea
of
what
we're
doing
where
we're
going
and
and
we
can
be
trusted
when
expansion
is
required
and
one
example
of
that
is
NPM,
which
came
up
in
some
discussions.
A
Those
discussions
have
backed
off,
but
there
was
a
suggestion
in
one
stage
that
NPM
would
come
under
a
separate
ESC
and
be
managed
differently.
I,
don't
think
anyone
has
the
stomach
for
that
at
the
moment,
but
that
was
an
alternate.
There
was
an
idea
which
was
looked
at,
which
I
wanted
to
just
squash
and
then
make
sure
that
the
board
is
the
area
of
technical
execution.
D
A
F
D
D
D
G
Also
feel
like
no
course
is
very
colloquial
term
one
that
you
know
everyone's
sort
of
things.
They
have
this
definition,
oh,
but
isn't
well,
it's
not
to
find
anywhere,
of
course,
but
it
also
something
that's
evolved
out
of
just
kind
of
like
more
technical
discussions
in
the
history
of
the
project.
So
you
know,
maybe
we
need
to
come
up
with
a
third
term,
we're
not
really
defying
TSE
scope,
but
note
cores,
maybe
not
the
right
words
either.
Maybe
something
like
a
node
project
scope
or
something
like
that.
I.
A
So
that's
what
it
says
in
there
we
can
revisit
that
and
because
it
still
deliver,
if
he's
a
better
way
of
defining
that
I
think
it
was
to
divide
into
these
three
areas.
There
was
there
was
no
core,
then
there's
the
wider
nodejs
open
source
ecosystem.
So
you
know
stuff,
we
think
about
my
me
on
github.
This
relate
to
node.
You
know
that
and
all
the
breadth
of
that
and
then
there's
the
commercial
ecosystem
to
beyond
that
which,
where
companies
are
building
products
and
tools
and
services
based
on
unknown.
A
So
there
was
three
areas:
activity
and
the
in
my
presentation
of
the
board,
the
the
tsc
got
autonomy
of
and
ownership
over.
That
first
point
and
the
second
point
was
owned
by
jointly
by
the
TSE
and
the
exec
boarded
the
foundation
executive.
So
it's
michael's
group
and
then
it's
much
more
about
the
executive
and
even
the
board
getting
involved
in
that,
but
that's
beyond
a
bit
beyond
our
scope,
so
have
a
look
at
that
and
use
that
as
a
reference
point
really.
A
What
we
wanted
to
do,
please
get
pleased
to
get
this
adopted
by
the
board,
and
there
comes
main
concern
was
a
and
the
reason
I
had
this
concern
that
the
concern
about
the
scope
of
node
core
the
reason
they
had
this
concern
is
because
there
was
spooked
when
we
said
express
could
come
under
the
foundation
or
at
least
under
the
incubator
thing
they
were.
They
looked
at
that
we'll
hang
on
we.
This
was
surprised
to
us.
A
We
didn't
hear
about
this
going
on
and
we're
not
sure
this
is
right
because
as
well
sure
this
is
the
what
we
signed
up
for
the
fair.
So
even
though
we
had
autonomy
to
do
that
kind
of
thing,
they
were
then
questioning.
What
hang
on
easy
is
that,
within
the
scope
of
the
autonomy
that
you
really
should
have,
and
I
and
I
do
agree
them
that
those
kinds
of
decisions
should
have
triggered
a
discussion
with
the
bullet
express
is
beyond
what
we
really
started
out
doing
and
we
should
have
had
that
committing
got
that.
A
A
Well
within
so
the
foundation
mission
statement,
I
don't
want
to
get
into
the
mechanics
of
taylor,
the
autonomy,
that's
not
part
of
the
mission
statement.
The
mission
statement
like
what
we're
trying
to
achieve
their.
We
simply
have
a
mission
for
the
foundation.
What
the
hell
are
we
doing
here
when
we
try
to
achieve
together,
that's
that's
it
and-
and
it
just
eats
your
God
mixed
up
in
tsc
autonomy
and
scope,
just
because
of
the
stuff
that
it
happened.
A
G
E
A
Yeah
and
I
end
like,
even
though
I,
even
though
this
make
sense
to
me,
and
it's
I-
think
it
works
really
well.
I
just
didn't
get
the
buy-in
from
the
board
on
any
stuff
I,
mainly
because
they
got
hung
up
on
that
first
stuff
there.
That
was
hard
kept
on
getting
to
that.
Getting
them
to
accept
the
clarity
of
that
stuff.
A
A
A
Not
yet
I
think
what
they
said.
The
way
I
see
it
in
my
head
and
I've
been
trying
to
express
is
that
the
first
step
is
to
get
a
get
the
foundation
to
agree
to
a
mission.
So
once
we
have
other
months,
we
understand
what
we're
doing.
Then
we
can
come
back
and
reflect
on
what
what
we're
doing
is
part
of
that
mission
and
then
say,
doesn't
make
sense.
A
The
structure
that
we
have
because
I
don't
think
it
does,
and
then
how
do
I
bet
better
organize
ourselves
so
that
we
are
executing
on
that
mission
so
that
the
health
of
the
node
core
project
is
being
taken
care
of
by
our
activity,
and
it
may
be
that
we
merge
those
groups
back
together
again
and
have
just
one
tsc.
They
have
different
arms
of
it
that
do
different
things
or
it
may
be
that
we
keep
this
structure
and
just
have
a
clarity
about
who
owns
water.
A
What
the
relationship
is-
and
you
know
what
we
pass
off
between
each
other,
but
we
don't
have
that
now.
So
that's
what
I
need
to
get
to,
but
I
think.
The
first
step
is
that
mission
statement
mayor
Matt,
maybe
that
maybe
we
never
get
there
Peter
bought
just-
is
because
I.
This
is
a
possibility.
The
ball!
It's
just
not
it's
not
a
strongly
opinionated
boarding
that
it
wants
to
drive
something
forward.
It's
it's
much
more
of
an
Administrative
Board
where
it
sort
of
exists
to
make
the
Foundation
exists
and
that's
about
it.
A
A
Yeah-
and
actually
this
is
another
point
that
is
worth
reiterating-
somebody
made
it
I'm,
economy,
whoo,
but
node
the
foundation
has
been
winning
by
just
don't
we
we
with
one
because
things
are
fallin
into
place.
We
haven't
we're
not
doing
really
well,
because
we
are
intentionally
doing
really
well.
A
lot
of
our
success
has
come
from
just
things
falling
into
place
and
so
we're-
and
we
have
discussion
previously
about
strategy
and
a
lot
of
this
document.
The
debt
PR
is
about
strategy,
for
this
very
reason
that
we
don't
have
strategy.
A
We
have
tactics
the
way
we
execute
things,
but
there's
no
sense
of
looking
forward.
Looking
ahead
and
mapping
out
where
the
party
is
and
how
we
can
succeed,
because
we
don't
know
what
we're
actually
trying
to
succeed
on
so
everything
I
really
about
what
what
the
goal
is,
what
the
mission
is,
then
we
can
start
being
much
more
strategic
about
that
and
saying
this
is
you
know
this
is
what
we're
doing.
Let's
make
ourselves
win
at
this
thing
intentionally.
B
So
I
brought
this
up
before
I'll,
bring
it
up
now
that
I'm
talking
in,
like
when
I
look
at
node
I
think
this
is
the
framework.
This
is
the
platform
that
brings
JavaScript
out
of
the
browser
and,
like
the
evolution,
the
move
from
Joey
into
the
foundation
I'll,
it
kind
of
feel
like
all
of
that
is:
okay,
that's
like
its
node
foundation
is
the
foundation
that
handles
or
that
represents
that
server-side
javascript
in
you
know
continuing
things
like
getting
shot
for
making
sure
this.
B
A
Actually
think
this
is
the
most
valuable
discussion
we
could
be
having
now.
The
other
thing
we
had
on
the
agenda
was
really
just
the
the
roll-up
stuff,
which
I'm
still
a
little
bit
hesitant,
partly
I
haven't
done
because
I've
just
been
busy
but
partly
I'm,
hesitant
because
I'm
concerned
that
we're
putting
more
load
on
people
who
were
busy
you're
ready
to
I,
don't
feel
that's
a
huge
priority
right
now.
The
biggest
priorities
game.
It's
dustin.
F
B
G
I
think
it
it
gets
complicated.
I
think
some
people
would
view
that
as
too
broad
others
would
view
it
as
narrow,
because
you
know
note
is
used
for
not
back
end
things
a
time,
but
notice
also
not
used
for
all
back
in
things,
and
there
are
technically,
at
least
there
are
other
back
end
javascript
runtimes-
that
no
no
one
really
uses
also.
A
Only
know
I
do
like
that
sentiment
Josh
we
that
we
should
own
back
in
Java
server,
side,
JavaScript
I.
Actually,
we've
been
asserting
that
in
know
it's
us
for
a
while
as
well.
That's
a
that's!
What
note
is
about,
but
it
84
the
boards
tastes
I,
think
because
you
could
fit
all
sorts
of
stuff
in
there
like
Express
like
pretty
much
anything
in
the
ecosystem.
Yeah.
A
F
Doesn't
necessarily
mean
server-side
right,
like
friend,
JavaScript,
pretty
much
means
that
you
are
live.
Loading
and
I
bring
someone
else's
code,
the
toasted
on
summer,
no
Jess,
virtually
always
you're
running
code
that
you
have.
You
know
installed
in
some
other
way
before
before
just
clicking
a
link
on
your
local
machine.
B
D
D
Right,
that's
kind
of
what
I'm
getting
at
like
our
goals
could
be
to
own.
You
know
back
in
JavaScript
or
whatever
we
say.
The
right
thing
is,
but
that
doesn't
mean
that
that's
the
same
as
the
autonomy
of
the
tsc,
so
you
know
I.
You
know
the
board
might
agree
with
well.
This
is
the
scope
of
what
we
should
be
trying
to
accomplish,
but
when
it
comes
to
these
things
like
adding
express
the
board
should
be
consulted
right.
F
B
If
we
define,
we
might
use
the
term
node
project,
but
it's
too
advanced
JavaScript
outside
of
the
browser.
That's
the
definition
of
the
node
project.
What
the
tsc
is
responsible
for
is
the
node
runtime,
the
stuff,
that's
in
the
github
repo
and
the
b
QV,
and
anything
beyond
that,
anything
that
falls
between
like
node,
core
and
the
repos,
and
that
expressed
all
the
other
things
which
are
part
of
it,
but
but
but
not
in
those
peoples.
B
F
D
That's
where
it's
like
everything
underneath
the
foundation
projects
right
and
it's
the
you
know
our
goal
made.
It
may
be
to
do
all
this
great
stuff,
and
that
turns
out
that
we
want
to
bring
Express
into
that.
Then
we
would
consult
before
that.
Basically,
scope.
You
know
we'd
be
bringing
another
big
piece
which
we
would
be
autonomous
over
once
it
comes
in,
but
the
bringing
it
in
part
would
be
the
consultation
part.
E
Said
that
the
list
approach
is
easy
to
scope
this
so
I
was
thinking.
Maybe
we
should
give
a
name
to
that
list
that
we
kept
required
to
other
tsc
scope
and
Coghlan
ojs,
cord
properties
and
in
theory.
If
you
want
to
try
to
express
to
to
that
list,
then
we
could
say
the
TC
as
authority
of
as
military
has
all
properties,
then
one
that
express
will
go
to
the
foundational
review
and
approval,
and
then
we
just
add
it
to
the
list
and
it
would
fall
under
the
TSE
yeah.
A
A
A
Well,
here's
the
other
thing
I,
don't
think
we
need
to
get
too
hung
up
on
connecting
tsc
scope
and
no
core
definition,
because
we
may
be
given
responsibility,
things
that
are
well
outside
no
core
and
maybe
Express
remains.
Maybe
we
all
agree
that
expressed
is
something
that
the
foundation
looks
after.
We
don't
want
to
have
to
manage
that
into
node
core,
but
we
do
want
to
have
a
way
to
say
that
the
TSE
RS
is
responsible
for
that,
and
so
the
mission
statement
doesn't
have
to
say
what
the
TSE
is
responsible
for.
A
It
just
has
to
give
us
a
framework
within
which
to
frame
that
so
we're
responsible
for
the
node
core
stuff,
but
we're
also
jointly
responsible
for
the
ecosystem,
the
open
source
ecosystem,
and
perhaps
that
responsibility
does
mean
taking
ownership
of
some
of
that
ecosystem
and
managing
in
ourselves.
And
let's
get
right
get.
A
F
And
the
technology
can
come
up
the
terminologies,
something
that's
generally
use
the
throne,
a
bunch
of
open
source
projects
feeling
like
that
she
had
to
find
anywhere
like
you
have
the
same
thing
for
like
lost,
like
all
of
like
lots
of
life,
with
lots
of
languages
and
stuff,
and
for
those
like
sort
of
like
the
platforms.
The
one
x
is
like
the
core
barato
than
just
stuff,
but
it's
still
like
it's
not
like
to
find
any
rush
specifically.
C
F
F
G
If
you
kind
of
view
these
efforts
as
sort
of
it-
and
you
know
looking
at
these
existing
charters
and
saying
where
do
we
need
to
tweet
them
and
update
them,
so
you
know
I,
don't
think
we
should
be
completely
beholdin
to
the
charters.
You
know
I
think
this
is
the
time
where
we
look
at
them
and
change
them.
B
Could
you
hear
me
hello,
yes,
okay
before
I
was
like
so
I
just
want
to
mention.
One
thing
that
I
have
learned
from
this
call
which
I
didn't
think
about
before
is
that
the
scope
of
the
new
project
could
be
broader
than
the
scope
of
the
tsc
NCTC,
like
the
board
was
kind
of
pushing
us.
Hey
don't
be
too
broad,
but
like
the
no
foundation
and
the
project
can
be
more
than
the
TS&CS,
they
don't
necessarily
have
to
be
the
same.
I.
A
Yeah
and
that's
within
the
as
I
said
it's
within
the
language
of
the
the
by
Lords
that
they
can
speed
up.
New
TS
needs
to
do
more
technical
activity
so
and
I
was
trying
to
avoid
that
simply
because
we
had
we've
built
this
foundation.
The
very
strong
like
BP
was
lyrics.
Key
and
and
I
was
I
was
concerned
that
we
would
dilute
them
by
having
alternative
technical
execution
under
the
foundation
and
and
then
there's
also
the
dilution
and
and
juggling
for
resources
from
multiple
technical
groups.
B
So
then,
maybe
then
we
should
is
in
order.
We
don't
have
to
see
your
concern.
If
we
leave
an
empty
space,
then
it
could
be
filled
in
with
other
TS&CS
and
dilute
and
stuff.
Maybe
we
should
say:
hey
there.
Is
this
empty
space
and
emphasize
that
that
space
should
be
managed
by
just
the
one
TSE
with
the
board
on.
A
I,
don't
really
want
to
get
to
that
discussion
right
now
with
the
board,
because
I
think
we'll
get
hung
up
on
it,
because
the
board
and
like
every
political
body,
wants
to
leave
it
up
into
pop
open
so
that
its
own
scope
is
protected.
You
know
we're
going
through
this
exercise
of
limiting
our
own
scope,
which
I
think
is
healthy,
the
board's
not
about
to
limit
its
own
scope.
A
A
We
should
it.
We
should
end
this
up.
It's
good.
I've
got
to
get
on
to
another
call.
Well,
so
do
you
Jeremiah
so,
but
this
has
been
good.
I'm
I
feel
like
we're
getting
a
bit
more
in
sync
on
what
the
objectives
are
here.
A
Hopefully
those
of
us
that
have
time
I'm
can
add
some
more
value
I'm.
So
thanks
for
the
discussion,
let's,
let's
take
it
back
to
github
and
then
revisit
in
a
couple
weeks.
So,
let's
end
the
formal
part
of
the
meeting
now
just
got
some
private
business
to
cover
the
outstanding
question.
Actually
I
had
was
when
the
next
meeting
is
going
to
be
because
I
believes
the
next
names
lot
overlaps
with
nerds
summit,
which
a
bunch
of
us
are
going
to
be
or.