►
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
A
I
guess,
if
not,
if
it's
worth
mentioning
that
the
the
agenda
or
the
schedule
for
the
open
days
conference
has
been
published
as
well
as
you
know,
confirmed
that
it's
it's
virtual
for
that
and
the
summit
and
I
guess
for
on
the
node
project.
Specifically,
we
should
be
thinking
about
any
summit
summit
topics
that
we
want
to
make
sure
we
get
into
the
summit.
I
guess
one
of
the
issues.
We
may
talk
about
that
a
little
bit
later
on
in
the
meeting.
A
A
D
That
makes
sense.
So,
basically,
the
question
is
about
there's
a
piece
of
code
in
the
node
that
checks
the
Windows
version
and
exits
if
the
version
is
not
supported
so
right
now,
couple
of
weeks
back,
there
is
a
PR
which
attached
Windows
7
in
the
list,
and
you
know,
according
to
the,
according
to
couple
of
users
who
raised
an
issue,
says
that
Windows
7
to
the
next
supported
version,
which
is
Windows
10.
Is
it's
not
a
free
upgrade
and
as
long
as
notice,
working
fine
on
Windows
7?
D
We
should
continue
to
support
that
as
opposed
to
exiting
it.
So
that's
the
problem.
The
dispute
is
about
whether
we
should
especially
consider
Windows,
where
we
are
not
doing
it
for
other
platforms
as
such,
the
cones
or
the
drawbacks
of
taking
it
off
in
my
opinion,
is
one
is
right.
Now
it's
covered
under
one
warning
and
if
there
isn't
any
anomalies
that
can
happen
before
the
warning
can
be
printed,
then
it
is
as
good
as
we
are
allowing
the
user
to
run
on
unsupported
OS
version
and
not
able
to
provide
any
meaningful
information.
D
Secondly,
when
the
problem
happens,
it's
not
very
easy
to
figure
out
every
time
that
the
user
is
running
on
an
unsupported
version
have
some
hydrations
before
we
actually
figure
out
okay,
this
is
Windows
7
and
problem
is
because
of
that
and
the
third
one
is
mainly
on
the
security
and
the
compliance
issues.
There
are
some
regulations
which
says
which
not
supposed
to
run
on
unsupported
versions,
but
you
know
throwing
it
out
is
as
good
as
we
are
endorsing
that.
B
It
might
be
worth
to
also
mentioning
that
we
at
least
my
perceptions
that
the
people
who
are
on
the
windows
team
for
node-
you
know
Joell
bartha's
or
our
you
know
our
burden.
You
know
seemed
opposed
to
allowing
this,
although
they're
open
to
the
suggestion
that
James
made
about
about
having
a
flag
to
allow
it
and
in
principle
I'm
in
favor,
of
allowing
people
to
run
on
platforms,
we
don't
support
just
we
don't
support
it.
B
If
you
run
into
a
bug,
but
in
practice
I'm
very
reluctant
to
over
over
well,
you
know
go
against
the
right,
any
other
recommendations
of
the
people
who
you
are
supporting
Windows
for
us
in
a
lot
of
ways.
That's
one
of
the
hardest
platforms.
It's
one,
the
platforms
that
we
have
difficulty
supporting
and
I
think
that
I
would
defer
to
their
judgment
on
this.
E
F
A
F
I
feel
like
usually
target
like
I,
try
to
like
either
program
stead
rap
note
in
some
way
or
that
you
know
or
when
run
notes
when
notes
runs
in
it
and
the
enterprise
server
context
or
something
where
people
can
set
their
own
flag.
Simply
can
micro
optimize
note
fit
their
own
needs
not
usually
and
users
who
use
applications.
E
G
I
would
imagine
in
those
cases,
and
then
this
is
an
interesting
one-
to
consider
the
people
shipping
the
applications
like
perhaps
electron,
could
choose
to
instrument
node
with
that
flag
when
they're
deploying
it
which
could
it
like.
If
we
think
about
you
know
like,
like
slack
slack,
is
built
with
node,
they
could
run
the
instance
of
known
embedded
an
electron
with
that
flag,
which
could
then,
in
turn
enable
it
to
run
on
Windows
7
machines
such.
H
F
A
E
Perhaps
a
compile
time
option
would
also
good,
because
if
someone
compares
their
own
node
beam
area
and
distributes
that
it's
probably
on
them
to
support
the
platforms
and
if
they
want
to
opt
out
of
that,
you
can
make
it
easier.
Is
the
compile
time
flag,
as
opposed
to
just
comment
out
the
code
path
or
I
didn't
graduate
variable,
but
I'm
not
convinced
that
we
should
actually
do
that.
I?
E
C
So
so
these
are
these
regulations
that
Greece
mentioned.
Are
they
satisfied
if
we,
if
we
provide
any
sort
of
method
out,
so
you
know
at
what
point
can
we
claim
that
we
are
following
the
regulation
saying
that
we
do
not
really
support
it?
You
know
how
many
hoops
does
the
user
have
to
go
through
to
enable
support
for
Windows
7
you
node
without
us,
getting
into
trouble
for
claiming
that
we
don't
support
Windows
7,
but
then
we
do
so
at
what
point
are
the
regulations
satisfied?
How
many
of
these
flags
do?
We
need.
C
D
I
understand
correctly
the
security,
compliance
and
regulations.
If
you
are
writing
a
software
which
runs
on
unsupported
platforms
on
a
on
a
free
basis,
then
the
responsibility
goes
to
if
the
person
or
the
organization
that
runs
the
application,
whereas
if
he,
because
we
specifically
have
a
check
over
there,
saying
that,
if
this
is
lesser
than
this
version,
we
are
putting
a
printf.
That
means
we
very
well
know
that
we
are
allowing
the
users
to
run
on
unsupported
voice.
D
I
B
E
G
B
A
A
J
There
was
quite
a
lot
of
ongoing
discussion
in
one
of
the
NPR's,
and
then
there
is
a
Twitter
poll
actually
also
hoping
and
could
be
looked
at
and
and
there
is
also
a
draft
for
this
survey
done
by
Matias.
Thank
you
very
much
for
that
and
that's
iterated
upon
at
moment
as
well,
and
that's
the
current
status.
A
J
A
H
B
H
It
has
never
been
it
does.
It
cannot
for
performance
reason.
It
cannot
inherit
from
that
class
do
no
way,
so
this
is
kind
of
the
problem
and
where
the
source
of
problem
starts.
With
now,
HTTP
message
evolved
from
streams
one
and
it's
kind
of
a
sibling
of
stream
writable
for
consistence
reason
and
providing
a
unified
API
to
our
users
run
and
would
like
to
align
some
of
the
error
handling
of
writable
to
the
one
sort
for
one
of
the
eight
HTTP
are
going
to
the
one
of
writable,
which
essentially
goes
into.
H
Throwing
something
in
passing,
it'll
be
meeting
errors
versus
before
it
was
thrown,
or
vice
versa.
I
am
essentially
one
versus
the
other.
I
always
confront
myself
because
of
this.
So
essentially
it's
that
is
kind
of
the
problem
and
I
would
I
it's
going
to
a
vote,
because
Brian
Brian
White
was
as
some
sort
of.
H
B
H
So
that
is
the
that
is
the
difference
and
I
I.
Don't
think
there
is
any
way
to
change
the
stream
dot
writeable
behavior
in
that
regard
it
does
not,
it
would
not
work
well.
So
the
opinion
is
to
move
it,
to
remove
it,
to
move
it
to
change,
HTTP
outgoing
message
or
keep
the
two
different
forever
and
ever
session.
A
B
Some
discussion
about
you
know
whether
the
is
finished
package
might
be
affected
because
that's
not
on
sit.
That's
not
on
canary
in
the
gold,
mine
and
James
helpfully
tagged
a
few
people
who
are
framework,
maintainer
z--,
who
then
hopefully
tag
the
there's.
A
team
for
that
now.
Webserver
frameworks
is
the
team
that
has
FASTA
PI
rested
by
folks
on
it
and
it
cetera
et
cetera.
B
So
it's
getting
some
eyes
from
from
you
know
relevant
people
in
the
community
and
I
think
I
answered
your
question
and
I
think
I
should
stop
rambling,
but
if
I
didn't,
let
me
know
and
also
I
should
add
that
there
are
six
I
sort
of
did
a
you
know,
use
your
use
emoji
to
indicate
where
you
stand
on
this
thing,
and
six
people
from
the
TSC
so
far
have
given
their
approval
to
this
and
I
think.
Actually,
we
might
be
able
to
infer
a
seventh
approval
from
Ana
because
she
approved
the
change
and
she's
here.
B
A
B
Yeah
I
mean
I,
don't
I
don't
do
this
should
stall,
but
I
don't
think
we
have
to
make
a
decision
today,
but
it
would
be
really
great
if
people
could
make
a
point
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
it
needs
to
come
to
a
vote
because
it's
at
an
impasse,
and
so
even
if
you
think
that
you're
okay,
so
usually
think
that
you
don't
have
an
opinion
on
this
they're
gonna
time
for
this
right
now,
an
abstention
helps
because
it
gets
us.
Your
lowers
the
you
know.
It
lowers
the
threshold
for
a
successful
vote.
H
H
B
So
I'll
open
up
an
issue
in
the
canarians.
Go
my
tracker
I'm,
not
gonna,
add
it,
but
somebody.
Somebody
certainly
can
I'll
open
an
issue
in
the
tracker
and
I'll
run.
I'll
run
the
is
finished
tests
locally,
with
node
compiled
with
the
change
in
that
PR
and
our
report
into
the
issue
about
the
results.
C
A
It
sounds
like
not
okay,
I
just
say
a
ritual.
A
E
A
Okay,
so,
but
if
that's
the
one
okay
I
just
moved
that
one
up
to
be
up
with
the
earlier
discussion,
then
moving
on
to
the
things
in
the
TSC
repo,
so
nominations
for
chair
again,
just
on
for
FYI
until
that
closes
later
this
week,
no
future
directions
any
interest
online
or
pursue
in
person
summit.
So
a
couple
weeks
ago,
I
took
the
action
to
come
up
with
some
concrete
options
which
I
have
and
I've
I've
added
them.
As
a
comment
in
that
issue,
let
me
just
find
the
hole.
A
Scrolling
to
the
bottom
there's
been
a
few
comments.
You
know
some
of
the
concrete
things
that
I
added
to
the
list
is,
you
know
we
can
decide.
We
don't
need
to
do
anything
on
this
front
and
just
close
it
out
and
say:
okay,
we
you
know,
let's
not,
we
don't
need
to
need
to
think
about
a
what
we're
gonna
do
in
the
next
ten
years.
We
could
pause
the
idea
for
three
months
and
revisit
to
say,
like
you
know,
this
is
not
a
good
time.
A
A
A
A
The
next
option
is
like
to
do
that
and
do
maybe
the
forward-looking
session,
so
maybe
like
try
and
get
three
hours
to
do
those
two
and
then
the
last
one
is
to
do
that,
like
the
try
and
get
like
a
session
good
good
length
session
at
the
virtual,
open
Jas
world
and
then
continue
to
talk
about
topics
that
we
won't
have
covered.
You
know
at
some
interval
in
the
weeks
after,
like
you
know
a
two-hour
session
every
other
week
and
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
other
variations.
A
You
know
I
just
kind
of
ended
up
with
given
the
current
situation.
You
know,
I
still
think
you
know
the
in
person
together
or
like,
or
even
a
more
concentrated
like
trying
to
do
in
a
week,
maybe
might
work
better.
But
given
the
environment,
that's
you
know,
maybe
not
feasible.
So
therefore,
you
know,
maybe
if
we
have
that
session
at
the
open,
J's
virtual
conference
to
start
with
and
then
try
and
plan
to
have
following
meetings
that
may
be
the
most
practical
you.
D
My
like
is
like
definitely
I
recognize
that
these
are
very
important
topics
and
especially
for
because
we
are
discussing
for
the
next
10
years,
having
in-person
conference
style
sessions
make
sense.
But
given
the
current
situation,
probably
we
should
look
out
for
a
better
opportunity
sometime
later
this
year,
also
that
that
would
be
my
first
preference.
D
A
A
B
A
A
A
D
A
A
Okay,
I
guess
the
last
thing
then
on
the
agenda
is
the
strategic
initiatives.
Let
me
open
up
the
issue
because
I
know
there
was
a
number
of
comments
there,
but
I
just
need
to
go
back
there.
B
B
C
B
B
H
B
B
G
I
personally
am
in
the
camp
that
thinks
that
we
should
keep
the
warning
on
LTS,
at
least
until
14
goes
to
LT
s,
but
that
that
warning
is
really
important,
and
if
people
want
an
experience
that
doesn't
have
a
warning,
they
should
use
nodejs
14
aside
from
that,
one
of
the
biggest
pieces
of
feedback
that
I've
been
receiving
so
far
and
I
think
is
important.
For
us
to
figure
out
is
around
loaders
and
just
kind
of
like
some
of
the
things
that
are
not
possible
to
be
done.
G
The
modules
team
I
think
over
a
year
ago
now
made
the
conscious
decision
to
separate
the
overall
modules
support
and
like
work
that
we
were
doing
from
a
loaders
itself
because
it
was
causing
you
know
like
us
to
kind
of
get
stuck
in
a
bit
of
a
standstill.
So
if
we
were
looking
at
stabilizing
modules
in
the
fall
for
LTS,
it
would
be
good
to
know
what
the
expectations
are
from
loaders
and
if
that's
considered,
you
know
something.
Do
we
need
loaders
to
be
stable
in
order
to
stabilize
modules
themselves?
G
It
haven't
had
clear
signals
on
that.
Yet
I
don't
think
that
the
modules
team
is
intending
to
have
loader
stable
in
order
to
call
ESM
stable,
but
members
of
the
TSE
may
have
a
differing
opinion
and
I
think
that
now
would
be
a
very
good
time.
If
those
had
those
had,
if
anyone
had
a
differing
opinion
to
kind
of
voiced
it
and
I
kind
of
get
involved
to
help
us
move
it
over
the
finish
line,
I.
H
So
I'm,
potentially
this
can
get
stable
on
node
14
I
would
be
very,
very
skeptical
and
opposing
removing
the
warning
and
calling
it
stable
on
node
12,
which
will
give
a
signal
of
well
to
the
community.
Don't
use
them
across
the
line
and
you
know
postpone.
They
postponed
the
mass
adoption
if
people
need
to
support
multiple
versions
of
Nazir's,
but
that's
up
a
middle
ground.
H
I
would
really
prefer
to
have
a
working
solution
as
a
working
solution
for
loaders
way
before
before
then,
and
to
solve
certain
class
of
problems
that
the
one
you
mentioned
between
a
PMS
and
now.
This
is
a
crossover
to
some
extent
between
folks
that
are
in
the
diagnostics
working
group
and
the
folks
in
the
modules
working
group.
Considering
the
fact
that
there
is
significant
activity
in
the
in
the
new
API
on
asking
hooks
and
stuff
we
might
have,
it
might
gain
from
some
of
that.
H
So
if
there
is
people
that
are
willing
to
invest
time,
there
might
be
the
good
time
to
actually
ask
them
to
to
be
able
to
step
in.
So
that's
essentially
from
my
point
of
view:
it's
not
feasible
to
run
ESM
in
on
a
server
in
production
without
loaders.
So
if
that
is,
that
will
be
the
recommendation,
my
recommendation,
so
if
that
doesn't
call
it
stable,
I,
don't
know
what
the
definition
of
stable
would
be
like.
It
can
be
stable,
but
you
can't
use
it
for
production,
so
is
it
stable?
H
G
H
H
G
The
modules
team
has
limited
bandwidth
and
we've
spent
the
time
that
we
have
on
getting
kind
of
the
interface
to
where
it
is,
but
we
have
had
we've
been
stalled
in
getting
loaders
done.
I
know
people
are
putting
work
there,
but
like
if
you
care
about
loaders,
we
need
more
support
there.
It's
just
kind
of
the
simple
ask.