►
From YouTube: 2022-04-05-Node.js Technical Steering Committee meeting
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
So
welcome
to
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
meeting
for
april
20
or
april
5th
2022.
We
will
follow
the
agenda,
which
was
in
the
issue
created
in
the
repo.
That
issue
is
12
20..
If
you
want
to
follow
along
before
we
get
started,
does
anybody
have
any
announcements
they'd
like
to
share.
A
Okay,
if
not
on
to
the
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates
rich
anything
on
the
cpc
front,
you
think
should.
B
Be
shared,
I
don't
I
can't
remember
there
wasn't
a
meeting
this
week,
though
trying
to
remember.
If
anything
happened
last
week,
I
should
be
more
prepared
for
these
things,
but
nothing,
nothing,
nothing
urgent
that
I'm
aware
of
and
if
I
think
of
something
I'll
send
an
email
to
everybody.
A
Okay
sounds
good
on
the
board
front
same
nothing
that
I'm
I'm
aware
of
but
needs
to
be
brought
up.
There.
A
I
know
mateo
had
you
know
some
comments,
he'd
mentioned
being
here,
but
I
think
it
is
pretty
late
for
him.
So
maybe
we.
C
A
A
Okay,
if
nobody
objects
I'll
just
note
that
in
the
next
one
is
util,
add
parsers
module.
This
is
426.75.
A
A
But
you
know
I
think
the
question
is
kind
of
like.
Are
we
at
the
point
where
we
should
just
have
a
vote?
You
know,
there's
the
two
options
or,
if
not
you
know,
what
is
the
concrete
step
we
can
take
to
help?
You
know,
move
the
move.
The
discussion
forward.
A
B
A
B
C
Think
yeah
last
spot.
We
was
a
bit
in
the
rush
because
the
18
was
about
to
be
released
and
not
everyone
was
able
to,
but
in
time.
A
B
B
A
So
all
volunteer
to
open
an
issue
to
say
say
plan
is
to
do
a
vote
to
do
vote.
Unless
there
are
objections
and
our
our
goal
would
be
like
antoine.
You
know
you
probably
need
a
little
bit
of
time
to
set
up
the
vote
anyway
right
like
what
would
that
normally
be,
and
we
can
just
say
like
we
don't
have
objections
by
then
we'll
go
ahead
with
it.
C
I
mean
it
can
be
okay,
it's
a
bit,
it's
quite
straightforward.
So
as
long
as
we
are
in
agreement
in
what
the
candidates
or
okay,
it's.
A
Okay,
so
why
don't
we
just
just
say
we'll
open
the
issue
today
and
we'll
kick
off
the
vote
on
friday
and
then
close
the
vote.
I
think,
like
I
think,
if
we
did
then
said,
we
want
to
close
the
vote.
The
next
friday
would
that
be
unreasonable.
A
A
B
F
B
I
I
I
I
think
we
should
treat
that
as
a
separate
issue.
That's
if
someone
thinks
it
shouldn't
land,
then
they
should
object
to
the
whole
thing,
but
the
question
the
question
at
hand
right
now,
let's
in
my
opinion,
anyways
that
we
should
keep
it
very
narrow,
which
is
if
this
lands
should
it
be
on
util
or
on
process,
and
I
don't
think
anybody's
arguing
that
it
should
be
its
own
module
or
anything
like
that.
So
I
think
I
think
those
are
basically
the
options.
Okay,.
A
E
B
Okay,
we
can
move
on
to
the
before
we
move
on
to
the
next
topic.
We
did
skip
announcements
this
time
and
mateo
did
have
something
he
wanted
to
make
sure
got
in
the
announcement.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
say
it.
If
that's
okay,
absolutely
I
don't
think
we
skipped
it,
but
oh
okay,.
B
D
A
A
A
Renaming
the
default
branch
from
master
domain,
some
progress
richard
and
I
worked
on
looking
at.
A
G
No,
it
hasn't
landed
yet
we've
only
just
I
think
we
fixed
so
the
the
snaps
were
broken
for
a
long
time
and
I've
also
sort
of
had
was
able
to
work
out
why
that
was,
and
I
believe
we
fixed
it.
There's
some
other
problem.
That's
cropped
up,
but
we
don't
have
that
transient
might
be
related
to
the
website,
occasionally
throwing
500
errors
but
yeah.
There
is
a
pr
open
to
do
the
branch
rename,
but.
A
A
Okay,
so
richard
will
land
and
read
and
rename
so
okay,
so
that
one
will
be
one
down
which
is
good
because
we're
down
to
a
small
set.
So
everyone
is
progress
and
we
have
a
meeting
set
to
talk
about.
The
unofficial
builds
one
on
monday,
and
so
hopefully
we'll
make
some
progress
on
that
one
as
well
anything
else.
You
want
to
add
on
that
one
richard.
A
More
okay,
the
next
issue
was
doc,
ad
tc,
vice
vice
chairperson.
So
after
last
week's
discussion
I
opened
a
pr
to
formally
add
that
to
our
our
charter.
The
suggestion
was
well.
We
don't
really
need
to
do
that.
Let's
just
vote
in
a
vice
chair
and
the
doc
already
says
the
chair
can
delegate
to
whoever
they
want,
so
they
can
delegate
to
the
vice
chair,
and
I
think
you
know
the
idea
was
we
can
try
it
out
without
committing
ourselves
to
anything.
If
we
do
it
that
way.
So
I'm
happy
to
do
that.
A
We
have
an
issue
for
the
the
chair
election,
which
is
I'll
just
move
that
up
a
little
bit
higher
1201.
So
if
everybody's
agreed,
you
know
when
we
kick
that
off,
we'll
just
kick
off,
you
know.
Basically
I
think,
as
we
said,
we
do
that
may
9th,
we'll
just
say
we're
looking
for
somebody
to
we're.
Looking
for
people
to
run
for
the
chair
and
the
vice
chair.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
in
that
case
we
probably
covered
the
two
next
pieces,
the
next
one
as
well,
which
is
the
issue
for
the
the
chair
election,
which
again
yeah
I'm
pretty
sure
it
was
like
for
the
timeline
proposed-
will
open
nominations
on
the
ninth
no
today?
Fourth,
yes,
today,
so
okay!
So,
oh
no
night!
Sorry
as
I
scroll
through
so
on,
ninth
we'll
open
the
nominations
and
go
from
there.
A
This
is
one
where
I
know
richard's
been
subscribed
and
he's
been
sort
of
keeping
us
up
to
date,
but
I'm
kind
of
thinking
it
would
be
good
for
the
tsc
as
a
whole
to
know
when
there's
open,
ssl
updates.
A
The
next
one
is
the
node.js
build
tool
chain.
Next
initiative
needs
a
champion,
I
think
rich.
You
dotted.
A
B
Mary's
thing
and
nobody
stepped
up
to
do
it,
and
I
think
we
should
remove
it
as
a
strategic
initiative.
Unless
somebody
wants
to
champion
it
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
a
tsc
member
to
champion
it
can
be
anybody
on
build
or
otherwise
involved
in
the
project.
A
Yep
was
it
did
joey
volunteer
to
send
out
a
tweet
last
time
a.
G
Okay,
so
yeah
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
people
in
the
issue
in
one
of
the
repos,
responding
to
a
sort
of
call
but
they're
sort
of
responding
and
that
they
would
like
to
join.
But
no
one's
actually
emerged
from
that
to
to
volunteer
to
actually
lead
the
effort.
G
Yeah
sounds
good
it
it's
it's
it's
done
by
pr.
Isn't
it
there's?
I
think
the
list
is
in
the
core
repo.
A
A
Okay,
that
sounds
sounds
like
I
don't
hear
any
objections
to
that.
So
I'll
just
note
that
that
takes
us
to
the
strategic
initiative
section.
Let
me
just
quickly
go
there.
A
A
You
don't
have
joy
this
week,
no
michael's
us,
so
we
and
the
last
one
next
10
no
updates
since
last
week
on
that
either
so,
okay,
so
no
updates.
A
So
that
takes
us
to
the
end
of
the
agenda
before
we
close
out
for
a
short
private
session.
Does
anybody
have
anything
else?
We
should
talk
about.
G
Yes,
I
do
okay,
great
sorry
about
that.
It's
okay
I'll
paste,
the
issue
link
in
the
chat
for
people
on
the
call,
so
I've
opened
an
issue
today
earlier
today
in
the
tsc
repo
regarding
node.js
16..
G
So
when
we
drafted
the
there's
a
document
in
the
tfc
repo
called
open,
ssl
strategy,
where
we
some
time
ago
we
this
was
years
ago,
we
sat
down
and
tried
to
map
out
how
we
were
going
to
handle
the
openssl
3
transition
with
node
and
open
this
l3.
The
story
is
it:
it
got
kept
getting
pushed
back
and
back
so
versions
of
node.
G
Unfortunately,
this
has
meant
that
we've
gone
out
with
openness,
so
version
1.1.1
in
note,
16
and
the
openness
of
project
is
going
to
end
support
for
openness
cell
1.1.1
in
september
2023,
which
is
some
several
months
earlier
than
node.js
16,
has
planned
to
go
end
of
life,
so
that
leaves
us
in
a
sort
of
state
for
several
months
where,
if
we
do
nothing,
then
we
are
potentially
exposed
to
any
vulnerabilities
in
the
openness
of
one-on-one
code,
which
will
no
longer
get
patched
in
those
seven
months.
G
We
could
do
what
we
did
for
node
address
eight,
so
node.js
h
was
on
openness
102.,
and
for
that
one
we
ended
the
normal
life
cycle
for
no
dates
early.
So,
instead
of
being
in
april,
I
forgotten
the
year,
but
we
we
ended
it
in
december.
G
G
So
that's
another
option.
The
third
option
we've
got
node.js
16
is
to
do
what
I
believe
would
be
a
very
risky
inversion,
swap
from
openness
still
one
to
open.
Still
three,
we
have
had
reports
on
node.js,
17
and
18
about
sort
of
compatibility
issues
with
add-ons
that
people
have
compiled
for
one
version
and
try
to
get
running
on
the
other.
So
there's
a
non-zero
amount
of
work
to
do
that.
G
G
I
don't
think
at
this
point
in
time,
I'm
comfortable
with
recommending
that
as
a
solution
for
note
16.,
we
have
a
bit
of
time
except
september.
2023
is
you
know
next
year
not
this
year,
but
if
we
were
to
bring
the
end
of
life
date
forwards,
I
think
we
would
want
to
communicate
that
as
early
as
possible
to
to
give
people
time
to
plan.
G
You
know
the
sort
of
the
maintenance
of
their
own
software
stacks,
so
yeah
I've
put
that
issue
out
there.
It's
already
got
a
bunch
of
comments,
most
of
them
in
favor,
of
ending
the
support
early.
So
I
guess
we'll
leave
that
open
for
a
bit
to
give
others
a
chance
to
chime
in,
I
think.
G
Originally,
we
were
hoping
that
we
might
be
able
to
do
an
inversion
switch,
but
that
was
before
open
history
was
released
and
before
we
had
any
idea
of
what
the
sort
of
compatibility
story
is
so
yeah,
that's
kind
of
where
it
is.
If,
if
someone
does
want
to
volunteer
to
investigate
the
compatibility
issues,
I
won't
stand
in
your
way
and
you
know
I'm
I'm
willing
to
be
swayed
either
way.
But
right
now,
if
you
were
to
ask
me
what
we
should
do,
my
recommendation
would
be
to
to
end
the
sport
early.
A
B
B
G
A
Yeah,
I
think
you
know
it
yeah.
It's
an
unfortunate
situation
so
good
to
give
people
some
time
to
think
and
give
and
chime
in
with
like
what
the
impacts
are
and.
G
So
the
only
other
thing
I
will
mention
is
we
are
actually
using
the
quick
tls
fork
of
openssl
in
node
16,
but
I
don't
see
any
evidence
that
the
support
statement
will
be
any
different
on
that.
I
don't
think
that
the
people
maintaining
the
quick
fork
are
doing
anything
other
than
adding
the
quick
patches
on
top
of.
G
H
H
And
I
guess
just
kind
of
like
thinking
out
loud
on
this
18
will
be
lts
in
october
of
this
year,
so
we'll
already
have
like
a
year
of
being
in
lts.
Before
this
happens,
it
will
be
a
month
away
from
going
into
maintenance
or
ts
yeah.
H
So
one
thing
that
I
think
that
we
should
probably
do
as
part
of
this
we
should
reach
out
to
the
foundation
is
just
make
sure
that
we
put
out
comms
about
this,
like
let's
make
this
decision
now,
let's
just
say
we're
going
to
do
it,
let's
put
out
a
blog
about
it.
Cloud
providers
in
particular
tend
to
have,
like
you
know,
like
deprecation
schedules
and
like
release
schedules
based
around
our
calendar,
so
be
good
to
make
sure
folks
are
aware.
A
Yeah
yeah
like
make
sure
that
we,
the
the
no
surprise,
is
probably
one
of
the
best
things
we
can
do.
Even
if
people
are
like
you
know,
you're
cutting
seven
months
off
the
sport,
but
this
is
the.