►
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
B
B
A
Weeks
I'll
add
to
that
is,
I
think
joe
mentioned
to
me
that
we've
already
had
something
like
500
people
who've
gone
through
it,
so
you
know,
thank
you
very
much
for
helping
to
put
that
together
and
it
seems
like
they're.
You
know,
you've
got
a
lot
of
community
interest
and
participation.
So
it's
a
good
start.
A
B
B
We
can
next
week
we
can
ask
how
many
answers
are
already
available
and
we
can
decide
if
we
want
to
extend
or
not
next
next
meeting.
B
The
last
one
I'll
be
landing
the
commit
we
will
meet
will
request
later
today.
This
request
will
allow
us
to
land
requests
on
node
car
using
a
label
instead
of
using
not
query
tools.
B
This
will
also
may
bring
a
smart
change
to
who
can
land
requests
once
this
proquest
lands,
the
triage
team
will
be
able
to
land
per
pass
as
well
as
long
as
the
request
has.
The
number
reviewers
has
a
work,
has
a
ci
run,
etc.
B
So
it
should
be
safe
to
have
the
trash
team
planning
requests
since
you
run
out
of
checks,
but
if
anyone
objects
objects
to
have
any
trash
team
planning
requests,
please
say
so
on
the
meeting
issue
or
on
the
commit
quick
request.
A
A
Okay,
no
thank
you
for
all
those
announcements
and
we'll
move
up
on
to
the
things
that
we're
tagged
for
the
agenda.
The
first
one
is
number
34035,
which
is
land,
sorry
stream,
simpler,
readable,
async,
iterator
and
robert's
here
to
talk
us
through
that,
since
he
added
it
to
the
agenda
so
take
it.
C
That
being
said,
the
behavior
slightly
differs
from
the
old
custom
iterator
implementation,
which
is
why
it
was
labeled
label
december
major,
but
I
was
a
defensively
defensive,
sember,
major
and
the
reason
we
would
like
to
port
it
back
to
version
14
is
that
we
might
want
to
add
more
features
that
depend
on
this
type
of
implementation.
C
At
the
node
conf,
we
discussed
different
ways
of
making
iterations
better
and
easier
and
faster
to
use
like
batching
and
stuff
like
that,
and
those
ideas,
kind
of
depend
on
async
generator
type
of
implementation.
C
So
the
question
is
whether
we
can
backport
this.
If
you
look
at
the
tests,
you
can
it's
pretty
obvious
in
what
ways
it's
breaking
and
the
prototype
of
the
iterator
is
different
and
the
way
it
handles
errors
is
a
little
bit
different
in
the
old
implementation.
A
C
I
find
it
very
unlikely
because
I
think
this
only
affects
if
you
use
the
iterator
manually
like
not
in
a
408
looper
or
something
like
that,
and
also
it's
kind
of
a
weird
situation
where
you
would
call
next
after
it's
already
failed
and
then
ex
expect
it
to
throw
again.
D
C
Yeah,
yes,
it
was
more
somewhere
major,
so
didn't
land.
Without
that.
D
What
would
make
me
comfortable
would
be
like
opening
up
a
backport
pr,
if
that's
not
and
like
a
ton
of
effort
to
put
that
together
to
start
with
and
then
running
sitkim
against
that
and
likely
reaching
out
to
a
couple
of
the
collaborators
who
have
deeper
streams,
knowledge
than
myself,
which
includes,
obviously
yourself
matteo,
maybe
like
matthias
and
maybe
doing
just
a
little
bit
of
like
prodding
some
ecosystem
people
that
might
have
things
that
could
be
broken
by
this,
and
I
think
that
if
you
know
like
all
of
those
stakeholders
say
hey,
you
know
this
is
fine.
D
Then
I
think
that
we
should
con.
Consider
marking
it
the
I
guess.
The
one
thing
that
we
would
probably
want
to
do
would
be
unmarket
december
major
and
switch
it
to
be
I'm
guessing.
It
would
december
patch,
because
it's
not
introducing
a
new
feature
right.
It's
just
changing
behavior,
so
we
probably
want
to
change
it
so
that,
like
most
likely,
15
would
pick
it
up
from
14.
D
We
wouldn't
have
it
like
listed
as
semver
major
in
15,
so
we'd
probably
want
to
like
make
a
back
port
test
and
confirm
in
that
back
port
that
we're
okay,
make
making
it
not
simver
major
and
then
like
kind
of
update.
The
upstream
issue.
C
So
you
would
prefer
a
backboard
pr
and
if
that
lands
or
when
it
lands,
it
will
remove
the
label
of
the
original
pr.
Then,
after.
D
Yeah
yeah,
exactly
because
the
thing
that
I
would
want
to
do
because
it
would
make
testing
easier,
would
be
running
these
smoke
tests
against
the
14
suite,
because
master
has
a
lot
of
various
failures.
For
other
reasons,
but
like
14
is
pretty
like
there's
like
between
one
to
three
modules
that
are
pretty
consistently
flaky
and
we
know
what
those
are.
So
we
can
kind
of
see
rather
quickly
and
easily
if
there's
new,
unexpected
breakages
cool.
C
D
Yeah
and
he's
someone
also
that
I
would
like
to
defer
like
I'll
put
it
this
way
like.
I
am
not
an
expert
on
this
subsystem,
I'm
more
of
an
expert
on
like
the
smoke
testing
and
releasing
so
I'm
happy
to
do
all
of
the
work
there
help
you
all
like
look
at
those
results,
but
I
would
want
to
just
see
multiple
experts
on
this
subsystem,
chime
in
and
then
I
would
personally
feel
comfortable.
C
Cool
I'll
open
up
pr
and
ping,
the
appropriate
people.
A
D
Yeah,
like
maybe
pharaohs
or
like
other
members
of
like
the
node
streams
team,
might
be
good
to
ping
on
this,
who
maybe
aren't
as
active
like
directly
in
core
on
it.
I
could
think
on
it
a
little
bit
more
also
depending
on
timing
like
if
we
put
this
out
in
14
like
in
the
next
14
or
the
following
14
from
that,
and
it
causes
major
problems.
We
can
revert
it
right,
like
it's,
not
lts,
yet
there's
definitely
flexibility
here.
D
If
we
find
that
it's
more
disruptive
than
we
expected
it
to
be
like
that,
we
have
ways
of
fixing
that
so
I
don't
think
we
need
to
be
like
overly
like
too
overly
conservative,
but
I
do
think
and
appreciate
you
handling
it.
This
way
rob
robert,
because
at
the
very
least,
let's
say
that
we
put
it
out
and
it
breaks
the
world
and
then
we
just
revert
it
the
next
day
and
people
like
well.
How
could
you
do
this?
Why
would
you
do
this
to
us?
We
could
be
like.
D
A
D
A
We
did
our
best
to
do
the
right
thing
and
we're
not
perfect.
This
is
a
good
yeah
like
here's
here
or
should
all
the
things
as
opposed
to
whatever
right
like
yeah.
We
did
our
best,
and
I
I
think,
like
I
typed
this
into
the
notes,
but
I'll
make
sure
everybody's
in
agreement,
like
I
think
part
of
what
you're
saying
is:
let's
try
and
get
it
in
before.
A
14
goes
lts
because
you
know
after
that
point
it
may
be
a
little
bit
worse
if
we
do
run
into
a
whole
bunch
of
problems,
whereas
if
we
do
it
today,
we
run
into
problems.
We
have
some
time
to
back
out
before
the
you
know,
the
more
the
most
conservative
people
who
will
only
pick
up
lts
could
be
affected.
A
No
okay!
So
let's
move
on
to
the
next
issue,
then
the
next
one
I
you
know,
is
kind
of
a
tracking
issue.
So
we
don't
forget,
but
we're
you
know
basically
waiting
on
github
to
provide
some
tooling.
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
new
on
that
front
miles.
D
So
right
now
the
there's
active
there's
active,
open
issues
on
the
nodejs.dev,
as
well
as
on,
I
believe,
node.js.sitcom
that
folks
have
not
had
any
concerns
or
complaints
about
doing
the
rename
and
I've
got
heads
down
time
tomorrow
to
do
it
so.
D
Step
is
to
like
rename
those
two
repos
I
picked
them,
because
they
both
have
a
number
of
open
pr's.
It's
not
like
the
end
of
the
world.
If
there's
a
little
bit
of
disruption,
neither
of
these
repos
have
like
the
kind
of
like
cadence
or
engagement
that
the
core
repo
does.
They
both
do
have
some
sort
of
integrations
for
ci
and
for
continuous
deployment
in
in
different
ways.
So,
like
I
think,
between
the
two,
they
touch
on
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
different
things.
A
Okay,
great
thanks
any
other
questions,
comments.
A
Nope,
okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
audit.
Google
account
access.
This
is
kind
of
a
long
time,
one
which
I
I've
just
left
on,
so
it
doesn't
get
forgotten.
A
A
Okay,
then,
the
next
section
is
strategic
initiatives.
However,
I
I
don't
think
we
have
enough
people,
we
don't
have
up
too
many
updates.
I
can
give
an
update,
there's
no
update
on
on
the
build
resources
front
and
I
didn't
see
too
many
other
updates
and
we
don't
have
people
leading
strategic
initiatives.
So
I'm
not
sure
it's
we
can
go
through
anything
more,
although
I
think
mary
you
mentioned
that
you
were
proposing
a
new
strategic
method.
I
don't
know
if
you
want
to
talk
a
little
bit
about
that.
B
B
I
started
to
start
conversation
with
google
to
basically
make
sure
that
whatever
we
came
up
with
whatever
we
come
up
with
houseworks
for
them,
because
they
also
run
ojsdi
on
v8
changes
and
I'm
also
going
to
be
contacting
embedders
such
as
electron
to
make
sure
that
any
changes
we
make
don't
break
them
too
bad
or
don't
break
them
at
all.
Perfectly.
B
A
B
I
think
it
come
with
some
downsides
or
some
limitations,
so
we
probably
will
need
to
decide
what
we
value
the
most
in
our
build
system.
B
A
So,
for
example,
you
know
if
you
want
to
clone
and
build
on
linux
on
p
v8
doesn't
provide
a
linux
on
pgn
for
our
current
builds
in
the
community.
We
actually
have
you
know,
compiled
that
it
compiles
fine
and
runs
it
just
hasn't.
They
don't
provide
the
binaries
you
need.
B
Yeah,
just
come
to
the
other
point
that
I
mentioned
prioritizing
what
we
value
the
most
in
the
build
system,
for
example.
Today
we
the
way
we
have
our
build
system
structured.
B
It
allows
us
to
define
v8
viewed
flags
every
time
we
build
something
if
we
had
a
v8
previewed
v8
static
libraries
that
we
provide
via
github
or
something
building
on
other
platforms
wouldn't
be
a
problem,
because
we
already
have
the
binary
review
and
it
would
also
improve
build
time
for
node.js
by
at
least
50.
B
A
A
If
we
made
this
change
to
the
build,
you
might
not
even
be
able
to
build
them
as
easily
anyway,
but
that
might
not
be
a
problem,
so
I
mean,
but
no
it's
it's
a
it's
an
interesting,
interesting
thing
to
with
with,
like
you.
I
think
it's
very
interesting,
like
you
said,
with
a
few
challenges
to
work
through.
B
B
A
And
I
I
think
in
some
of
those
cases
it
might
be
that
it's
harder
to
like
the
one
I
just
described,
where
you're
trying
to
build
for
an
earlier
version
of
node.
That
might
still
be
possible.
It
might
just
be
that
we
need
to
have
the
instructions
that
say
well.
First,
you
have
to
build
the
b8
library
that
you
need
here's
the
steps
to
do
that
and
then
you
can
run
the
next
step,
and
so
you
can
still
get
there.
It's
just
not
just
not
the
same
as
a
make
x.
B
A
So
I'm
going
to
promote
reuben,
and
so
I
I
think
we're
at
the
end.
Sorry
reuben.
I
just
noted
you
noticed
you
needed
to
be
promoted
so
before
I
close
out
I'll
ask
if
there's
anything
you
want
to
bring
up
or
discuss.