►
From YouTube: 2022-09-28-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).
B
Okay,
so
welcome
to
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
meeting
for
September
28
2022.
We
will
follow
our
agenda
as
outlined
in
the
issue
that
was
created
in
the
TSC
repo.
That
was
issue
number
1287..
B
Before
we
get
started.
Does
anybody
have
any
announcements
they'd
like
to
share.
C
Oh
yeah
I'll
call
into
a
session
on
that.
Let
me
assume
I
will
I
haven't
seen
what
time
it's
going
to
be
for
related
to
esm
and
async
cooks
and
loaders
Mateo
was
setting
that
up.
B
A
Opt-In,
node,
44731
I
think
I'm,
the
one
who
added
it
and
I
don't
think
we
need
to
discuss
it,
but
I
will
give
a
summary,
which
is
that
sorry,
Michael
I
just
decided
to
blast
in
yeah.
B
A
It's
it's.
It's
pull
request,
four,
four,
seven,
three
one!
It's
add:
Auto,
detect
family
option,
I
believe
I'm,
the
one
who
added
it
to
the
agenda
and
but
even
if
I
didn't
what
happened
is
this
is
about
implementing
happy
eyeballs
and
it
was.
It
would
be
a
breaking
change,
but
it
would
fix
some
significant
problems.
A
We've
seen
in
in
in
in
node
18.,
originally
needed
TSC
attention,
because
the
plan
was
to
make
it
default
and
which
is
a
breaking
change,
but
to
land
it
as
a
as
a
feature
rather
than
Breaking
change.
A
What
someone
made
the
suggestion
that
let's
land
it
as
opt-in,
only
and
then
in
a
separate
PR
landed
as
the
default,
and
we
can
just
talk
about
just
that
aspect
of
it.
I
am
in
favor
of
Landing
it
as
default
behavior
and
accepting
that
we're
putting
a
breaking
change
into
the
18
line,
and
we
should
do
that
before
it
goes
LTS.
However,
that
can
be
a
discussion
for
another
day.
For
now,
though,
plan
is
to
land
happy
eyeballs
soon
and
go
from
there.
Beth
has
her
hand
up.
D
Yeah,
so
the
the
only
thing
with
the
LTS
date
we
have
set
the
LTS
date
as
I
want
to
say
around
the
28th
of
October
and
towards
that
end
of
the
month,
and
we
try
to
keep
the
baking
time
from
current
to
the
LTS
transition.
We
tried
to
preserve
that
so,
in
theory,
everything
that
ships
on
the
day
it
changes
to
LTS
should
have
landed
two
weeks
before
that
date.
D
So
the
point
I'm
just
trying
to
say
here
is
if,
if
you
want,
if
this
needs
to
land
before
it
goes
LTS,
it
has
about
two
weeks
to
do
so
max
without
us
breaking
policy
or
changing
the
LTS
date.
So.
C
D
I
see
I
think
Danielle's
release
is
scheduled,
which
is
the
last
release
before
OTS
for
the
4th
of
October,
which
doesn't
give
much
time
at
all.
I
suspect
that
one
might
be
delayed
to
the
11th,
but
I
think
that
would
be
it
because
that's
I
needed
two
weeks,
like
that's
the
card
for
the
two
weeks,
unless
you
want
to
start
making
exceptions,
pushing
out
the
LTS
date
and
so
yeah
just
to
add
the
sense
of
urgency
there.
C
Yeah,
this
is
much
more
of
a
bug
fix
than
it
is
a
breaking
chain.
I
mean
from
a
user's
Detective
from
a
user's
perspective.
It's
like
I
bind
a
local
host
and
it
just
doesn't
work
a
lot
of
the
time
and
I.
Don't
know
why
you
know
and
then,
if
I'm
doing
stuff,
where
it's
levels
deep,
like
I'm
running
a
Dev
server
through
a
build
tool,
you
know
it
that
it
doesn't
work
because
it's
binding
to
local.
You
know
it's
like
there's
all
sorts
of
it
just
feels
completely
broken
to
users.
C
It's
and
it's
because
it's
behaving
as
intended,
which
is
like
resolve
localhost
to
IPv6
one.
You
know
blah
blah.
Like
there's
reasons
it
behaves
the
way
it
does,
but
so
it's
not
technically
a
bug
in
the
intent
from
the
intent
of
the
developers,
but
users
I
think
feel
it
like
gets
a
bug
and
that's
why
I'm
much
more
like
yeah,
let's
plus
one,
make
it
default
unless
I'm
misrepresenting
it,
someone
who
knows
it
better,
I.
A
C
B
I
think
for
me:
that's
why
I
was
asking
the
questions
about.
Are
there
people
who
care
one
way
or
the
other
so
got
it
go
for
it
I
mean
do
we
do
we
think
there's
people,
people
who
care
whether
they
use
ipv4
or
V6,
because
I
think
that's
the
main
thing
that
it
may
change
on
end.
B
E
I
think
the
problem
is
at
the
moment.
Is
it's
not
deterministic,
because
it
completely
depends
on
external
factors
to
note
it
depends
on
what
what,
when
node
queries
for
host?
You
know
you
want
to
connect
to
some
website
somewhere.
E
It
completely
depends
on
how
your
network
has
been
configured
and
your
operating
systems
to
which
of
the
possible
IP
addresses.
For
that
you
know
the
address
you're
trying
to
go
to
comes
back
first
and
the
big
difference
in
18
is
at
the
moment.
18
doesn't
attempt
to
Resort
those
addresses
prior
to
that
we
always
used
to
stick.
The
ipv4
addresses
ahead
of
anything
else
so
prior
to
18,
you
would
probably
be
going
ipv4
unless
you
didn't
have
an
IP
before,
but
but
there.
C
E
E
What
we're
talking
about
here
is
what
happens
if
you've
not
set
that
flag
and
you're
just
picking
up
the
defaults.
There
is
now
in
18
there's
a
change
of
behavior
of
from
the
previous
versions
and
I
think
the
general
agreement
seems
to
be
that
the
current
18
Behavior
is
far
too
surprising
or
unexpected
to
to
most
users.
E
You
know
if
they're
coming
up
from
node
16
to
18,
you
know
as
one
LTS
to
the
next,
then
it's
probably
going
to
surprise
a
lot
of
people.
You
know
no
matter
how
much
we
highlight
it
in
the
release,
notes.
B
A
E
B
E
B
Okay
right,
so
the
next
issue
is
Return
of
the
ecosystem.
Security
working
group,
number,
1081,
I,
think
Rich.
You
added
this
one
as
well.
A
Yeah,
so
the
current
ecosystem,
security
working
group
Charter
mentions
the
node.js
foundation
and
you
know
the
entities
that
don't
exist
anymore
and
we
know
that
the
their
activity
has
changed
radically,
since
they
were
first
chartered
and
I,
don't
think
we
ever
recharted
them.
So
it's
probably
a
good
idea
to
recharter
them
or
another
option
would
be
to
de-charter
them
as
I'm
of
the
opinion
that
for
the
most
part
we
do
not
really
distinguish
between
working
groups
and
teams.
We
have
working
groups
that
do
nothing.
We
have
teams
that
work
really
hard.
A
We,
you
know
it's
just
a
so
anyway,
I
just
yeah
I
think
we
should
we
We,
but
this
suggestion
was
made
back
in
September
of
last
year
and
it's
been
over
a
year.
We
haven't
done
anything
so
I
thought
I
would
prod
us
to
maybe
do
something.
A
So
there
we
are
and
I
don't
know
that
we
have
to
do
anything
today
at
this
meeting.
But
you
know.
A
A
A
Tsc
is
trying
to
figure
out
if
you
need,
if
we
need
to
update
your
Charter
or
simply
D
Charter
you
and
let
you
folks
rock
on
continue
to
work
as
a
GitHub
team,
rather
than
on
a
official
working
group.
Okay,
I'll
I'll.
A
B
Okay,
I
know
that
we
want
to
preserve
some
time
for
private
sessions,
so
I'm
going
to
suggest
we
skip
strategic
initiatives
unless
anybody
has
some
critical
updates,
they
want
to
share.
B
Okay,
if
not
so
at
this
point,
I
think
we
can
close
out
the
meeting
thanks
for
everybody
for.