►
From YouTube: 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
A
Then
I
think
we
can
jump
right
into
the
agenda.
The
first
item
is
on
nodejs,
build
its
DB
quest
for
elevated
permissions.
Rod
wag
will
send
out
an
email
with
an
update
there.
So
there's
nothing
to
discuss
this
week
in
the
meeting
and
then
in
know,
J
is
node.
We
have
a
collaborator
nomination
for
Gd
amps.
That's
issue,
two
one,
nine
three
four.
So
welcome
thanks
for
joining
us.
B
A
A
A
C
Can
speak
to
it
a
little
bit
so
there
was
a
Libby
Vee
upgrade
and
when
we
upgraded
the
movie,
it
broke
a
use
case
that
this
yars
trying
to
fix
I
think
this
PR
doesn't
actually
fix
the
issue.
So
we
need
to
decide.
You
know
if
we
want
to
try
to
work
around
the
issue
in
node,
which
is
that
we're
not
respecting
some
of
the
flags
on
the
streams
that
we're
creating
or
if
we
want
to
try
to
revert
in.
Let
you.
D
:
other
odd
people
in
that
discussion,
because
that
sounds
like
a
very
specialist
issue.
So.
C
D
E
E
B
E
A
F
G
Yeah,
sorry
about
that,
we
have
feedback
in
the
room.
Cuz,
Timothy
and
I
are
in
the
same
room.
We
haven't
figured
this
out
yet
I
I
think
that
with
December
and
and
the
kind
of
you
know
what
is
considered
the
good
practices
with
cember,
we
broke
some
ver
accidentally.
That
is
a
bug
and
we're
fixing
the
bug
which
is
non
cember
major.
This
is
prior
to
LTS
and
I.
Think
part
of
our
support
contract
with
current
is
you
know
this
is
in
line
with
it
and
and
I
think
doing.
H
I
G
J
I
G
B
A
H
H
A
B
Was
raised
last
week,
tierney
added
it
on
to
the
agenda,
I
think
at
least
partially
fer
for
awareness.
The
suggestion
was
for
more
people
that
jump
into
there's.
Actually,
an
issue
opened
in
release
where
I
that
I'd
opened
earlier
suggesting
that
you
know
maybe
we
want
to
have
two
types
of
builds.
I
did
look
yesterday
and
there
nobody
else
I,
don't
think
it
actually
chimed
in
there,
but
I
think
people,
people
chiming
in
there
saying.
B
Yes,
this
looks
like
a
good
idea
or
no
it's
not
the
reason
tyranny
was
adding
it
here
is
that
you
know
the
the
doctor
working
group
is
actually
gonna.
Go
two
steps
to
like
remove
it.
So
I,
don't
think
they're
waiting
for
permission.
He
just
looked
at
it
as
a
hey.
This
is
a
situation
where
you
know.
One
of
the
groups
within
the
project
is
having
to
do
something
that
you
know.
If
it
was
done
at
the
project
at
the
at
the
release
level,
they
wouldn't
have
to
be.
You
know,
removing
pieces
and-
and
you.
G
On
the
flip
side
of
that
Michael,
like
the
steps
that
they
have
to
do,
if
they're
removing
it
from
the
Debian
image,
which
is
the
base
image
they're
looking
at
doing
it
for,
is
just
like
rim
wrapping
a
folder,
whereas
on
our
side,
if
we
do
a
release,
we
now
have
twice
as
many
assets
that
we
need
to
maintain
over
time
sign
in
host
in
cloud
storage.
One
other
thing
that
I
do
want
to
make
sure
is
raised
to
people
in
docker
node.
G
If
you
look
at
pull
request
number
808
from
28
days
ago,
this
I
just
became
aware
of
this
for
the
small
images
they're
talking
about
about
calling
it
the
core
image
I'm
likely
to
raise
an
objection
to
this
later
today,
I,
don't
think.
That's
the
best
name
I've
seen
in
the
ecosystem.
These
kinds
of
images
referred
to
as
a
tiny
image,
but
I
think,
because
core
is
a
word
that
we
use
around
specifically
refer
to
node
core,
that
that
may
be
a
bit
confusing
and
not
convey
the
message
intended.
G
But
if
other
people
on
the
TFC
have
any
advice,
I
do
want
to
make
sure
that
I'm
not
just
kind
of
like
stomping
around
this,
isn't
a
working
group
that
I
participate
in
so
I
didn't
want
to
chime
in
before
bringing
up
to
the
group.
Does
anyone
else
see
any
problems
with
that
naming?
Am
I
maybe
being
a
little
too
sensitive
about
it?
I.
D
Don't
really
see
a
problem,
but
I
agree
with
you.
The
tiny
is
it's
a
bit
more
idiomatic
for
doctor
I'm
surprised.
This
group
has
jumped
to
call
rather
tiny
I
suspect,
that's
because
of
the
movements
around
core
OS
and
what
what
Red
Hat's
doing
with
the
naming
of
it
now
as
well.
Maybe
that's
where
that's
coming
from,
but
I
I
agree,
but
maybe
just
do
it
gently,
because
these
guys
are
working
really
well
with
autonomy
and
yeah.
That's,
let's
not
trying
to
ruin
that
too
much
yeah.
G
B
I
A
I
And
about
different
today,
security
working
hope
that
might
be
a
good
idea
for
the
general
discussion
on
what
really
the
Krypton
model.
That
is,
what
are
you
going
on
security?
Okay?
Go,
but
for
this
specific
place,
I
think
that
we
need
to
decide
whether
I
will
puncture
or
partially
go
to
the
change
which
order
you
language
in
the
branch.
I
think
that's
what
was
discussed
and.
I
I
I
D
I
I
A
A
A
A
B
The
last
the
last
comment
basically
says
it
needs
a
decision
from
the
TSC.
The
you
know
the
some
of
the
history
was
it
was
put
on.
There
was
some
discussion.
There
was
a
suggestion
that
you
know.
Maybe
an
implementation
would
help
illustrate
some
of
the
the
sort
of
subtleties
in
terms
of
helping
to
make
a
decision.
B
G
G
Should
all
API
is
being
associate
only
promised
API
is
being
the
scope,
nothing
any
one
of
those
are
better
than
the
other,
but
like
we
don't
really
have
a
process
in
place
for
discussing
this
without
like
putting
together
an
implementation
so
well.
Well,
Jordan
has
requested
a
mode
I,
don't
actually
feel
like.
We
have
any.
You
can
creat
enough
to
vote
on
now,
aside
from,
and
maybe
this
could
be
good,
that
we
could
reach
consensus
on
that.
G
B
And
I
think
that's
what
jordan
was
asking
for
was
some.
You
know
his
comment
was
he's
happy
to
go
ahead
and
continue
to
work
or
refine
the
implementation,
but
I
think
it
was
a
request
to
say
a
decision,
one
way
or
the
other
just
so
that
it's
not
a
doesn't
go
off
and
do
that
and
then
the
end
is
I.
Go
we
just
don't
want
to
do
that.
D
G
Yeah
I
mean
like
if
we
keep
it
strict
as
to
how
we
add
api's
I
mean
there's
one
way
to
view
it
is
that
we're
making
it
easier
and
the
others
that
were
optimizing,
the
problems.
So
we
don't
need
to
deal
with
it
like
htv-2
and
navigating
that
was
problematic,
and
while
it
does
create
an
extra
barrier
to
entry,
I
I
think
still
that
a
scope
is
the
right
thing
for
us
to
do,
because
we
don't
own
the
namespace.
D
Yes,
so
so
this
this
does
go
back
to
a
broader
discussion
than
feels
justify.
Having
about
you
know
around
the
whole
small
core
and
shared
values,
thing
I,
don't
I,
don't
really
like
the
idea
of
that
getting
mixed
up
with
these
particular
issues,
because
this
isn't
specifically
about
small
core.
The
objection
is
sort
of
orthogonal
to
it,
but
I
did
put
another
I
put
another
item
on
the
agenda
probably
show
up
next
week,
and
that's
about
that
as
well.
D
B
I
was
just
gonna,
add
cuz
I,
you
know
I
I
I.
Can
I
don't
think
the
you
know
it's?
It
makes
it
too
easy
to
add
things
like
if
we
think
we
should
should
make
it
harder
to
add
things
or
have
more
of
a
review
process.
We
should
do
that
as
opposed
to
like
not
scoping,
because
it
makes
things
harder
kind
of
thing.
B
I
guess
it's
like:
how
do
we
get
to
I'm,
not
sure
we
have?
You
know
at
one
point:
there
were
some
strong
objections.
I
am
not
sure
if
those
still
exists,
so
you
know
how
do
we
get
to
the
point
where
it's
clear,
whether
you
know
people
are
generally
okay
with
you
know
going
for
a
name,
a
namespace
or
not.
D
B
Mean
I,
guess
the
you
know
as
an
issue,
it's
less
clear,
I
mean
Matteo.
Who
was
I.
Think
strongly
objected.
One
point
is
basically
said:
you
know
don't
block
on
me,
so
we
could
look
at
that.
I
mean
she
should
we
just
put
in
the
issue.
Basically,
you
know
there
were
no
objections
to
this
moving
forward
in
the
last
TSE
meeting.
You
know
please
comment
here
and
if
there
aren't
any
objections
by
X
amount
of
time,
you
know
we
can
consider
that
it
can
move
forward.
Is
that
a
reasonable
way,
I
think.
D
G
B
Mean
in
my
mind,
the
thing
that
might
help
is
the
strong
pros
and
cons,
but
I
don't
know
if
that
would
actually
change
anybody's
thoughts
right.
You
know,
I've
heard
a
bunch
of
reasons.
Why,
like
you
know,
if
TC
30,
no
one's
gonna
do
something
we
don't
want
to,
but
then
tc39
is
said
not
to
wait
and
I.
D
H
D
G
We
thought
about
this
similar
to
have
tc39.
Does
the
process
like
we
could
consider
this
to
be
stage?
One
I
know
we
don't
have
this
here
but
like
if
we
wanted
to
explore
using
their
stages.
Stage
one
is.
We
are
open
to
exploring
this
and
we
want
to
see
an
example
of
the
implementation
and
when
we
have
the
implementation
written
down,
we
can
promote
it
to
a
stage
where
we
can
start
getting
that
implementation
review
done
next
thing.
G
D
B
G
B
G
Please
see
me
if
you
have
any
quick
reminder
that
if
you
go
to
know
jaya,
/
TSE
and
you
go
to
our
projects
page,
there
is
a
board
tracker,
including
things
that
are
in
progress.
Proposed
charter
changes
things
to
bring
to
the
board
working
with
subcommittee
working
with
the
executive
director
done
and
abandon.
If
you
want
to
get
things
on
my
radar,
please
feel
free
to
just
throw
things
into
that
board.
I
consult
with
it
constantly
or
just
write
me.
A
G
B
B
Should
be
an
issue,
that's
going
to
be
opened
with
that
in
terms
of
discussing
whether
Libby
V,
you
know
that
the
Libby
V
team,
so
we've
never
said
that
Libby
V
is
part
of
NEPA
or
is
part
of
the
stability
guarantee
that
does
pose
some
challenges.
In
terms
of
you
know,
modules
who
need
more
than
what
we've
encapsulated
you
know
can't
take
advantage
of
what
you
get
from
an
API
and
we
need
to
discuss.
There's
always
been.
B
You
know
a
couple
different
options,
one
which
is
Libby
V
decides
that
they
are
gonna,
provide
a
stability
guarantee
and
that's
what
the
issue
would
be
open
to
discuss.
Other
options
include,
you
know
us
covering
more
of
its
surface
area
in
an
API
or
saying
figuring
out
that
you
know
the
portion
we've
already
covered
is
is
right,
I,
don't
personally
think
it
makes
sense
for
us
to
cover
all
of
it.
You
know
at
that
point
it's
you
know,
I
think
the
first.
B
If
we
thought
that
any
kind
to
cover
everything
in
Libby
V,
then
it's
better
that
Libby
V
itself
provides
the
guarantee,
rather
than
trying
to
wrap
that
whole
thing.
But
Gabriel
was
going
to
open
an
issue
to
get
that
discussion
going
in
the
context
of
you
know.
Matteo
mentioned
that
there
was
going
to
be
a
release
plan
soon,
so
we
should
discuss
it
in
that
timeframe.
I.
D
J
G
F
B
Know
the
full
details,
but
I
for
my
understanding
is
it
seems
to
be
have
caused
some
instability
in
the
OS
X
build
the
knock-on
effect
of
that
is
that,
because
we
use
oh
because
we
use
OS
X
to
build
our
headers,
it
means
that
we've
only
been
getting
headers
being
built.
You
know
say
30%
of
the
time
I
haven't
you
know.
B
I
just
saw
the
issue
today,
so
I
haven't
read
the
full
issue
to
be
able
to
talk
to
why
it's
causing
instability,
but
you
know
Mike
very,
very
quick,
read
was
it
didn't
sound
like
it
was
a
simple?
Let's
just
tweak
one
thing
so
I
I'm
thinking,
we
may
need
to
back
it
out
if
it's
going
to
take
us
a
little
while
to
figure
out
how
to
resolve
it.
F
A
Okay,
thank
you
async
folks,
but
I
think
at
least
not
here
and
last
initiative
is
open.
Web
standard
smiles.
G
There
is
an
open
issue
right
now,
talking
about
tc39
and
ekkuva,
and
getting
involved.
I
have
conversations
both
with
the
board
level
and
at
the
Eklund
level,
to
figure
out.
Some
of
you
know
the
political
bits
of
getting
this
blind
and
have
a
meeting
next
week.
So
I,
don't
think
I'll
be
able
to
update
at
the
next
meeting,
because
on
Thursdays
at
the
following
meeting,
I
show
some
more
updates.
All.