►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/143
Rod Vagg - https://github.com/rvagg (TSC)
Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
Anna Henningsen - https://github.com/addaleax (observer/CTC)
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)
Bert Belder - https://github.com/piscisaureus (TSC)
Jenn Turner - https://github.com/renrutnnej (observer/Node Foundation)
A
Okay,
a
quick
review
of
last
meeting.
We
did
tsc
elections,
we
did
a
collection
and
I
was
only
myself
standing,
so
that
was
that
went
through
defining
note
call
we
skipped
regular
roll-up.
We
skipped
NP
nvm,
we
skipped,
so
that
was
pretty
much
all
we
covered
the
last
meeting.
Some
of
the
most
of
these
other
things
are
perpetual
agenda
items
that
we're
trying
to
thought
out.
So
this
week
we
re
visiting
them,
starting
with
the
defining
note
core
topic,
which
is
now
moved
to
a
new
pull
request.
A
A
One
more
thing
I
was
thinking
about,
since
I
put
the
pull
request
in,
is
that
we
need
some
way
of
talking
about
the
fact
that
there
are
a
lot
more
repos
in
them,
don't
chase
org.
Then
I
mentioned
in
this
document
so
whether
they
fit
so
we
need
some
way
of
covering
that
activity,
the
just
that
the
language
groups
and
all
the
other
miscellaneous
repositories
that
are
not
significant
enough
to
mention.
B
A
A
D
B
D
Likely
what'll
end
up
happening
is
every
what
I
think
we
should
do.
Is
you
should
make
sure
that
you
know
whatever
changes?
We
do
you
want
to
do
whether
it's
one
or
two
pr's
should
both
be
landed
before
we
go
to
the
board,
just
because
you
know
for
having
have
a
lot
of
back
and
forth
with
the
board
just
because
of
like
scheduling
that
will
necessarily
push
this
down
the
road
quite
a
bit.
So
it
would
be
nice
if
we
kind
of
get
like
all
of
that
and
even
fit
that
you
know
fairly
quickly.
A
A
So
this
was
put
there
because
we
have
two
apparently
passed
a
motion
to
dip
into
that
funds
that
were
made
available
for
tsc
travel
and
we'd
like
to
get
jeremiah
to
disease
modules,
meetings
that
are
happening
in
San,
Francisco,
well,
I'm,
sorry,
around
San
Francisco
such
a
sea
39
is
meeting
next
week
and
there's
also
a
dedicated
meeting
for
yes
modules
happening
in
a
few
days
time,
and
this
was
a
request
to
try
and
get
some
money
from
the
foundation
to
pay.
For
that.
D
B
Every
clarification
here
definitely
be
good.
The
one
thing
that
will
I
understand
is
it.
The
TS&CS
bucket
of
money
for
travel
assistance
is
distinct
from
the
Foundation's
bucket
of
money
for
travel.
Assistance
to
conferences
at
the
CFC
actually
has
its
own
bucket.
That
it
administers.
Is
that
correct
row?
Well.
A
Yeah,
it
is
but
the
last
board
meeting
that
was
discussion
about
rolling
that
back
into
general
funds,
because
we
hadn't
used
it,
which
is
going
now
to
the
Finance
Committee,
and
that
and
we
hadn't
used
it
because
this
whole
like
dad.
Oh,
how
do
we,
but
that
are
actually
when
we've
rigidly
set
it
up.
It
was
two
for
the
tsc
to
get
people
to
talk
about.
No,
let
me
carry
this
criteria
about
what
people
would
need
to
do
to
talk
about
nude
at
conferences,
and
it
was.
A
A
A
This
is
kind
of
separate
to
that,
so
this
is.
This
is
tsc
travel
fund
that
we
would
use
for
tsc
business,
I,
think
the
collaboration
summit,
stuff
sort
of
came
under
a
different
banner
and
that
was
budgeted
for
separately.
I
think,
but
I
can
pass
that
on
that
feedback,
if
you,
if,
unless
somebody
and
this
brand,
you
think
it's
been
passed
on
already,
I.
D
D
It
cropped
up
so
I
think
there's
something.
I
would
guess
that
it's
been
passed
on,
no
I
think
what
we
can
do
to
help,
though
is
you
know
for
duty,
Attila
this
process
and
I'm
working
on
filing
an
issue
right
now
for
this
you
know
if
we
just
leave
in
detail,
SE
lakay,
the
tsc
has
these
funds
over
here.
For
these
reasons,
and
then
we
didn't
even
have
a
blurb
like
you
know,
if
you're
looking
for
funding
for
some
other
thing,
just
point
to
you
know
the
foundation
or
something,
but
it's
just
yeah.
D
F
Think
in
general
would
be
nice
if
there
was
some
some
ink
increase
in
like
finance
talk.
I
know
it's
kind
of
a
hard
thing
to
say,
because
finances
are
close
to
our
kind
of
thing,
but,
like
I,
don't
even
know
what
this
community
fond
of
process
is.
It
certainly
been
talked
with
with
the
board
and
I've
vaguely
heard
about
it
from
a
board
member,
but
out
I,
don't
know
what
that
entails
and
I
had
never
heard
of
this
TSE
fund.
It's
you
know
it's
not
written
down,
then
I
won't
find
it
yeah.
A
I
never
degree
would
hide.
I
find
this
a
little
bit.
Frustrating
and
I've
had
issues
with
it
a
couple
of
times,
but
every
time
we
have
to
talk
about
money.
It
goes
to
these
the
private
meetings
for
the
board
in,
like
literally
anything,
to
do
with
money
which
is
kind
of
weird.
But
it's
apparently
it's
a
thing
because
we're
because
of
the
kind
of
organization
we
are,
we
have
to
do
this
stuff,
privately
and
I.
So
I
don't
know
even
what
we
can
be
public
about.
A
So
I'll
take
a
note
here
to
talk
any
more
general
terms
about
getting
more
financial
information.
I
do
I
do
share
a
bit
of
stuff
with
it,
the
TSE
privately,
when
reporting
on
board
meetings,
so
there's
a
there
is
a
little
bit
more
information
floating
around,
but
again
it's
all
its
most
of
its
kept
private
because
of
because
apparently
with
bows
to.
A
Okay,
so
let's
have
a
vote
and
see
how
we
go
so
forth.
Tsc
members
which
we
have
and
how
many
were
one,
two,
three,
four:
five:
can
we
get
a
vote
in
this
chat
panel
or
via
audio?
If
you
don't
have
access
to
chat
for
approving
a
request
for
funds
to
get
dream?
I
er
to
this
modules
these
module
meetings
in
nerve,
san
fran.
E
A
It's
I
would
say
it's
it.
The
needs
to
come
from
us
as
I
request.
In
order
for
us
to
be
able
to
use
that's
all.
This
is
I.
I
can't
just
go
and
say:
hey
would
like
some
money
for
this
activity.
Please
make
it
happen.
It
has
to
be
tsc
says
we
passed
the
motion
to
request
this.
Can
you
please
free
it
out
to
do
it,
so
it's
not
actually
making
the
funds
like
it's
not
actually
releasing
the
funds,
it's
actually
giving
us
the
ability
to
get
the
funds
if
we
absolutely
need
it.
A
So
so,
if
they're
meeting,
if
this
meeting
planned
meeting
falls
through
somehow,
then
from
sure
we
can
not
request
it.
It's
the
same
as
if
we
I
like
this,
that
the
amount
of
money
I
put
on
there
for
it's
1800
was
this
absolute
ceiling.
I,
don't
expect
it
to
cross
that
much
so
it's
just
a
you
know:
we'd
like
up
to
this
amount,
please.
If
we
need.
A
A
B
Yeah
concern
I
have
is
just
a
good
as
Brian
mentioned,
it's
just
you,
it's
not
documented
very
well,
and
then
you
know,
as
part
of
the
documentation
is
if
we
approve
the
funds
and
they're
not
used.
What
happens.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
those
funds
go
back
into
the
pot
and
don't
just
sit.
There
is
allocated
funds
until
the
next
round
of
budget
disease.
A
Okay,
what
I'm
gonna
do
is
them
back?
I
prefer
to
talk
to
Michael
about
the
state
of
these
funds
and
how
do
we
can
report
on
them
but
I,
but
it
used
to
be
a
bucket
of
money
that
was
allocated
and
can't
remember
how
much
I
can
probably
look
it
up
in
them.
In
some
meeting
minutes,
just
SAT
there
ready
to
be
used
and
it
would,
and
if
we
used
it,
then
it
would
come
off
that
title
and
be
reported
through
the
Finance
Committee.
G
Yeah
I
have
no
particular
concerns.
Actually
I
did
Jeremiah
seems
fairly
important
for
this
discussion
and,
let's
not
be
is
it
because
if
it's
the
first
time
to
like
you
know,
we
can't
expect
someone
to
really
know
procedures
or
whatever
I.
The
only
thing
that
I
find
a
little
strange.
Is
it
like
3d,
late,
yeah
I
mean
like
if
you
book
a
flight
from
toronto
to
San
Francisco.
Now
it's
gonna
cost
you
well,
I'm
not
sure.
If,
eighteen
hundreds
even
gonna
cut
it
yeah.
F
Another
piece
of
feedback
here
is
I'm,
just
an
observer,
so
maybe
the
tsc
has
has
actually
had
the
discussion
of
how
much
money
is
in
this
bucket.
But
I
I've
curious
to
know
if
voting
on
things
like
this
would
make
a
difference
if,
if
eighteen
hundred
dollars
was
eighty
percent
of
the
bucket
people
might
not
think
it's
such
a
good
idea
that.
A
D
A
D
A
A
A
B
The
one
of
the
things
it
was
anted
pointed
out
was:
we
actually
had
a
very
small
number
of
committers
at
collaborative
summit
in
amsterdam,
an
idea
of
wanting
to
get
a
lot
more
of
them
there.
So
what
would
be
the
process
for
doing
at
in
austin?
How
soon
do
we
need
to
start
how
much
we
actually
have
available.
A
You
know,
I
think
I
think
the
thing
about
that
is
that
if
we
want
that
to
happen,
then
what
we
need
is
somebody
to
champion
it
on
our
end.
Otherwise
it
falls
down
to
Michael
to
do
and
then
to
do
in
both
in
terms
of
organizing
the
thing
or
promoting
it
dealing
with
travel
schedules,
all
that
sort
of
stuff.
If
we
I
keen
for
those
things
to
happen,
say
we
want
to
have
one
at
Austin,
then
somebody
on
our
end
needs
to
stand
up
and
champion
it.
A
They
need
to
promote
it
to
the
collaborators
and
they
need
to
come
up
with
a
process
for
freeing
up
funds
for
travel
and
then
work
with
the
foundation
to
make
that
happen.
Otherwise
it's
going
to
fall
on
to
Michael
again,
who
is
already
stretched
for
time,
and
it's
already
you
know
around
early
directive
is
already
much
more
interested
in
other
things
than
organizing
that
so,
but
that's
the
missing
piece,
I
think
I.
Think.
G
The
other
thing
to
think
about
is
like
you
really
don't
need
to
do
too
many
of
them
because,
like
most
likely,
you
know
if
there's,
if
there's
going
to
be
four
or
six
a
year,
then
like
people
are
gonna,
go
to
one
or
maybe
two
of
them,
and
that
means
that
you
know
every
every
collaborator
summit
will
only
have
a
limited.
You
know
subset
of
the
collaborators
there
so
either
you
know
we
decide.
That's
okay
or
you
say:
well,
we
do
only
one
a
year
and
we,
you
know,
we
plan
it
way
in
advance.
F
A
B
A
B
We
had
one
room
available
and
we
had
a
code
and
learn
in
the
morning
and
everyone
that
was
at
the
code
and
learned
look
around
and
it
was
very
difficult
or
for
us
to
have.
The
kind
of
you
know
get
the
individual
teams
together
to
focus
on
just
the
topics
like
like
the
ABV
folks
in
streams
folks
to
get
together
and
talk
about
you,
something
they
needed
to
talk
about,
because
there
was
really
no
where
to
send
them
off
to
to
talk.
B
A
B
B
A
Look
so
the
next
things
we
have
on
the
agenda.
I
think
we
can
probably
skip
I've
got
some
more
notes
to
take
in
the
document
here.
So
it's
time
a
little
bit
distracted,
but
as
I
read
through
these,
can
you
hold
me
up
if
you
want
to
say
anything
about
them,
but
I
think
they
can
be,
they
can
come
back
to
the
agenda
and
be
resolved
a
little
bit
later.
So
first
one
is
issue
number
139,
which
is
switching
default,
license
from
MIT
to
Apache
version
2
as
I'm.
Eventually
in
there.
A
A
A
Yeah,
this
is
about
changing
default
license
so
that
we
went
to
the
board
board
had
a
quick
chat
about
it.
But
the
board
can't
really
make
a
stance
here.
They
have
to
defer
to
the
legal
committee
so
that
they
can
get
at
standard
approval.
Generally,
it's
fine
because
it's
part
of
that
the
whole
patent
protection
thing
that
apache2
is
preferred,
but
I
think
this
has
to
come
back
from
the
lego
committee
to
us
as
formal
recommendation.
A
A
C
A
Okay,
so
that
this
yeah
understand
the
confusion,
so
the
it
hasn't
been
formally
recommended
by
the
Luke
committee.
It
was
part
of
a
discussion
about
patent
protections,
so
the
there
were
two
options
presented
for
us
to
deal
with
patent
protections.
Amongst
you
know
the
other
possibilities,
but
these
two
options
that
were
floated
were
one
was:
we
could
have
a
sec
la
a
corporate
contributor,
license
agreement
that
you
have
to
get
your
company
to
sign.
A
If
you
want
to
contribute
that
give
affords
us
some
patent
protection
and
then
the
other
one
was
Apache
License
version
2,
which
has
wording
in
it
about
patents
and
apparently
it's.
It
would
probably
be
good
enough
if
we
were
under
apache2
to
protect
us
from
that.
But
of
course
we're
on
the
MIT
for
the
main
project
and
switching
licenses.
Isn't
that
easy?
So
then
there
was
discussion
about
dual
licensing
gone
or
at
a
split
license
way.
A
You
code
contributed
from
one
from
a
to
get
a
point
onward
would
be
cut,
would
be
covered
under
apache2
and
historical
code
would
be
a
kind
of
MIT
all
very
complicated.
But
that
comes
down
to
us,
which
is
the
basic
recommendation,
that
apache2
is
more
ideal
because
it
has
language
in
there.
So
we
then
said
we'll
probably
switch
I
default
license
to
that,
since
it
sounds
like
it's
supposed
to
be
ideal.
Now
we're
putting
the
question
back
this
you
know
with
the
question
is
basically
we
are
hearing
that
apache2
is
a
more
ideal
situation.
A
D
I
doesn't
want
to
wait
on
the
legal
committee
on
this
because
you
know
I
could
have
been
looking
at
the
salon.
I
put
a
lot
different
viewpoints
I'm,
actually
not
convinced
that
it's
a
more
ideal
license.
I
think
there
are
some
legitimate
concerns
surrounding
this,
but
of
course
none
of
us
here
or
lawyers,
so
yeah
I
just
want
to
definitely
wait
for
them
to
iron.
This
all
out.
A
So
Brian
I
I
have
not
heard
people
expressing
concerns
here
and
have
not
heard
through
the
foundation
like
board
legal
community
grapevine.
So
if
there
are
concerns
that
you're
hearing
that
you'd
like
questions
answered
on,
then
we
should
definitely
push
that
through
so
like.
Perhaps
there
are
concerns,
but
I
gut
feel
is
that
link
kameez
just
going
to
say
yeah.
We
like
the
language
in
there
better,
so
you
should
use
that.
But
if
we
have
questions,
if
there
are
doubts,
we
should
definitely
have
those
questions
answered.
D
A
A
A
F
Let's
see
the
permissions
stuff,
I
I
think
might
be
a
little
stalled
because
people
are
still
a
little
nervous
about
giving
it
permissions.
This
more
discussion
to
happen.
We
had
on
that
I'm
favoring
having
a
standalone
like
deployment
of
this,
this
very
micro
service
that
only
adds
or
removes
a
person
from
the
organ.
That's
the
only
thing
with
the
elevated
access
so
we'll
see
and
the
required
docs
was
a
bit
hung
up
just
on
this
licensing
thing,
I
think,
but
also
the
governance
on
who
it
bubbles
up
to,
and
we
kind
of
just
said.
F
A
With
the
docs
I
think,
if,
if
we
end
up
waiting
too
long
for
this
license
thing,
you
could
just
go
ahead
with
MIT
and
then
we
could
change
it
later.
If
we
end
up
switching
default
too
bad,
you
too,
because
you
it
wouldn't
be
hard
to
get
agreement
from
all
the
contributors
to
switch
the
license
later
on
yeah.
F
A
Now,
okay,
so
let's
have
a
public
Q&A
time
if
anyone's
listening
on
the
stream-
and
you
have
questions-
please
comment
there
on
youtube
or
in
the
issue
in
the
tsc
repo
for
this
meeting
or
even
in
IRC
we're
a
few
of
us
are
so
we'll
have
a
couple
of
minutes.
While
we
wait
for
the
stream
to
catch
up
and
see
if
there's
any
questions.