►
From YouTube: Node.js Technical Steering Committee meeting 2020-08-06
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
Live
rich.
Take
us
away:
hey
welcome
everybody
to
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
meeting
for
august
6
2020
and
we're
going
to
start
off
as
we
always
do
with
announcements
and
mary.
Do
you
want
to
kick
it
off.
B
Sure
so
the
foundation
shared
the
unhandled
rejection
survey
with
us.
A
first
draft
of
the
survey
there's
an
issue.
C
B
In
the
survey
I
know,
girls
already
left
some
comments.
One
of
the
things
the
foundation
suggests
that
we
prepared
a
blog
post
for
to
share
with
this
survey
to
increase
visibility.
B
So
maybe
we
can
turn
that
summary
into
a
blog
post
with
a
few
changes
and
share
the
survey
alongside
blog
post.
Those
are
a
few
of
the
ideas
we
have,
but
either
way
the
survey
is
almost
ready.
We
just
need
some
some
folks
to
review
and
after
that
we
can
search
sharing
on
opengs
foundation,
media
channels,
as
well
as
on
our
own
twitter
accounts,
etc.
A
A
Okay,
cool:
are
there
other
announcements?
Besides
the
near
near
readiness
of
the
unhandled
rejection
surveys,
anybody
have
anything
else
to
announce
to
the
world
before
we
move
along
to
our
usual
agenda.
A
Okay,
we
usually
do
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates.
I
believe
our
cpc
rep
currently
is
mateo
he's
not
here,
and
I
believe
our
board
rep
right
now
is
michael
and
he's
also
not
here.
Someone
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
but
if
I'm
not
I'm
just
going
to
move
along
to
the
next
topic.
A
Okay,
so
there's
renaming
the
default
branch
from
master
to
main
or
something
similar.
This
seems
to
largely
be
a
placeholder,
but
I'm
guessing
that
maybe
somebody
has
updates
for
us.
Oh
sorry,
I
gotta
promote
people
who
are
joining
a
little
on
the
we
do
that
miles
or
someone
else
is
any
any
updates
on
the
branch
renaming.
D
D
D
Slash
or
something
else
yeah
so
like
right
now,
if
you,
if
you
change
it,
there
is
support
for
like
forwarding
the
canonical
links.
So
if
you
try
to
go
to
like
slash
map
like
https,
no,
like
github,
slash,
node.js
node
slash,
I
think
it
would
be
like
I
forget
what
the
canonical
url
is,
but
we'd
maybe
have
links
to
master
around
the
internet
and
those
links
would
get
forwarded
to
the
new
default
branch
name.
D
What
I
do
not
believe
is
there
right
now
is
like
the
ability
to
like
get
pull
master
and
still
get
maine
without
us,
setting
up
some
sort
of
tool
to
kind
of
keep
a
branch.
That's
up
to
date,.
A
Okay,
so
so
forwarding
for
https
urls
is
ruled
out
but
get
cold.
Are
we
talking
about
the
scheme
or
are
we
talking.
D
So
like,
if
you're
consuming
by
a
browser,
you
will
get
redirected
as
expected.
If
you
are
consuming
as
a
get
client,
if
we
don't
have
a
master
branch,
someone
trying
to
pull
from
master
will,
it
will
fail,
which
was
one
of
the
concerns
that
we
had.
I
know
that
there's
something
being
worked
on
to
offer
something
here:
it's
just
not
there.
Yet.
As
far
as
I
know
now
there
are
tools
that
we
could
use.
D
But
you
know
I
I
know
that
there
were
mixed
feelings
about
whether
or
not
it
was
you
know
worth
creating
setting
up
that
infrastructure
until
things
were
more
stable.
If
it
would,
potentially,
you
know,
break
the
world
in
unexpected
ways.
A
Okay,
so
so
there's
really
nothing
for
us
to
necessarily
do
at
the
moment
is,
in
your
opinion,
just
kind
of
waiting
to
see
what
what
kind
of
support
github
comes
up
with
for
for
forwarding
and
and
other
issues
or
something
we
should
be
acting.
D
On
I,
I
think
that
the
forwarding
for
urls
is
actually
one
of
the
things
that
we
weren't
able
to
do
ourselves
so
having.
That
is
good,
although
if
we
keep
a
cloned
master
branch,
like
that's
that's
kept
up
to
date,
you
know
that's
gonna
work.
I
still
think
from
the
beginning
that
it's
something
that
we
could
roll
out,
but
I
know
that
people
were
not
bullish
on
taking
a
risk
here.
D
D
I
think
that
I
had
suggested
it
for
nodejs.dev
as
well
as
for
canary
in
the
gold
mine,
so
I
think
rolling
out
a
procedure
on
those
and
seeing
it
work
for
a
little
bit
may
be
a
a
good
step
as
well.
A
Yeah,
I
would,
I
would
love
to
see
that
I'd
love
to
like
you
know,
let's
find
out
what
happens,
what
breaks
and
what
doesn't
break
and
what
the
pain
points
are
for
us
on
a
on
a
repo,
that's
not
core
and
then
take
those
lessons.
Does
anybody
else
have
something
they
want
to
say
about
this
or
ask
or
offer
to
do.
C
So
basically,
with
this
forwarding
in
place,
is
that
the
word
must
can
be
completely
eliminated
in
all
its
usage
and
internally,
it
will
be
bound
to
the
master.
Is
it
how
it
works?.
D
D
If
we
had
an
action
that
kept
the
two
branches
in
sync
and
then
we
made
one
of
the
branches
read
only
that
should
keep
the
majority
of
my
personal
opinion.
It
should
keep
pretty
much
any
tool,
that's
relying
on
us
working
except
for
tools
that
push
to
master
and
there's
a
very
small
number
of
people.
I
guess
push
to
maine.
In
that
case
and
there's
you
know
a
smaller
group
of
people
who
are
doing
that
and
that
would
probably
be
you
know
like
updating
the
text.
Output
of
core
of
core
utils.
A
Yeah,
I
I
would,
I
might
suggest,
starting
with
even
a
smaller
repo,
if
you
I
mean
a
less
active
repo,
if
you
wanted
to
like
like
core,
validate,
commit
or
or
node
preset
remark,
whatever
the
you
know,
that
one
is
the
the
linking
preset
one
is,
but
you
do
you?
Would
you
be
willing
to
to
to
to
do
that
like
get
started
on
that
with
with
one
of
the
repos
like
this
week
or
next
week,.
D
Or
something
or
is
that
yeah
I
mean
to
be
honest,
I
opened
issues
on
these
repos
asking
to
do
it
and
have
not
had
any
negative
feedback
yet,
and
I
was
just
kind
of
leaving
them
open
for
a
little
while
to
make
sure
there
was
no
miscommunication,
so
I
could
go
into.
I
honestly
think,
like
part
of
the
reason
I
wanted
to
do.
D
Dev
honestly
was
because
we
have
automations
that
are
set
up,
so
it
I
want
to
force
having
to
update
some
of
those
so
I'll
go
and
drop
in
those
issues
and
basically
say
I'm
going
to
break
ground
on
this
work
next
week.
If
no
one
says
not
to.
F
So
I'll
ask
the
weird
question
which
is:
do
we
have
an
official
policy
on
this
whole
keeping
master
around
because
conceptually
I
struggle
with
the
idea
of
of
even
just
having
this
this
reference
like,
even
if
it's
just
the
read-only
branch,
that
the
mirror
is
main
it
still
feels
like
it
feels
like
we're
just
like
kind
of
missing
the
points
I
don't
know.
Maybe
it's
just
me.
D
I
think
I
think
that
having
the
temporary
branch
and
very
much
making
it
temporary
documenting
it
and
maybe
keeping
it
for
six
months
and
then
getting
rid
of
it
is
something
that
we
could
do.
I
think,
like
the
challenge,
the
challenge
here
is
going
to
be
very
much,
and
I
know
that
I
think
this
is
something
that
was
being
talked
about.
D
I
think
I
think
there
is
a
way
for
us
to
maybe
improve
this
a
little
bit,
but
like
the
big
challenge
that
we've
got
right
now
is
that
we
need
to
at
least
give
people
a
heads
up
that
have
automations
that
are
built
on
top
of
this,
that,
like
hey,
your
automations
are
going
to
break.
So
I
see
it
almost
like
a
deprecation
cycle
and.
C
D
F
I
I
completely
empathize
with
that.
I
think
the
only
thing
that
I
that
I'll
say
is
I'll,
probably
want
to
be
mindful
about
the
messaging,
because
I
mean
just
just
in
a
vacuum
without
any
messaging
like
switching
to
maine
keeping
master
around
as
a
backup
feels
like
a
very
hand,
wavy
sort
of
oh,
we
did
something,
but
not
really.
You
know.
D
Yeah,
I
I
think
that
we
very
well
could
do
this
in
such
a
way
where,
like
we
document
it,
make
it
clear
commit
to
a
timeline
of
removing
it
send
out
some
sort
of
messaging
to
folks,
and
I
think
with
that
in
mind,
it
also
speaks
to
the
fact
that
we
should
be
intentional
and
thoughtful
about
how
we
roll
this
out.
A
So
I
did
not
capture
most
of
that
for
the
minutes
and
it's
always
concerned
in
miles
response.
So
so,
if
you,
if
you
want
that
in
the
minutes,
either
go
ahead
and
drop
it
in
yourself
or
or
tell
me
in
no
uncertain
terms
that
I
need
to
summarize
that
conversation.
But
I
think
I
started
to
type
that
like
anatoly
messaging
stuff
like
that.
But
I'm
not
good
at
this
keeping
minutes
thing.
A
In
real
time,
okay,
anything
else
about
about
this
issue
before
we
move
on
to
the
next
one.
A
All
right,
okay,
so
next
up
is
resigning
from
cpc
voting
member.
This
is
matteo,
is
going
to
be
stepping
down
for
good
reasons
for
happy
reasons,
but
let's
see
here
yeah,
so
nobody
has
put
anything
in
there.
Let's
hear
so,
what's
the
time
frame
on
this.
A
Starting
in
november
okay,
so
we
have
plenty
of
time,
but
we
do
need
to
pick
a
replacement,
I'm
not
sure
what
the
process
will
be,
but
I'm
inclined
to
leave
this
on
the
leave
this
on
the
agenda,
but
probably
not
discuss
it
much
today,
unless
somebody
has
somebody
feels
like
we
need
to
make
decisions
now
about
how
we're
gonna
do
this
set
some
set,
some
dates
for
nominations
or
whatever
I'll
stop
talking
for
two
or
three
seconds
to
let
somebody
jump
in
and
say
something
if
they
want
to
otherwise
I'll
move.
A
A
A
Sit
here-
and
it
looks
like
the
last
comment
in
it
was
in
on
in
june
so
six
weeks
ago,.
D
A
G
A
November,
coming
off
this
yeah,
we
just
we
just
finished,
not
talking
about
it
so
yeah.
Let's
talk
about
it.
G
Well,
that's
to
be
honest,
that
is
the
only
like.
The
only
part
in
there
is
that
establishing
that
there
is
a
few
to
do
items
which
is
establishing
who
will
take
my
place
and
then
deciding
what
the
timeline
for
that.
A
Right
yeah,
I
have
I
put
in
the
notes
that
we
need
to
establish
a
process
with
dates
like
how
are
we
going
to
pick
up
pick
the
next
person
and
and
what
are
the
dates
going
to
be.
G
Go
go
on.
I
that's,
that's,
that's
that's
what
it
is.
So
if
we
are
in
agreement,
then
I
can
just
write
a
few
lines
in
there
and
try
to
see
if
there
is.
I
would
just
ask
for
volunteers
if
there
is
more
than
one
volunteer
to
join,
essentially
and
then
see
where
we
are
at.
That
would
be
my
recommendation.
A
Yeah
one
way,
I
I
like
the
idea
of
putting
out
in
a
call
like
in
the
issue
just
leave
a
comment:
tagging
tsc
asking
for
people
to
self
to
volunteer
to
be
you
know
and
give
like
two
weeks.
One
week
two
weeks,
two.
A
A
Okay,
so
so
you'll
do
that
mateo
you'll,
probably.
G
A
That
okay
mateo
will
in
the
issue
calling
for
people
to
volunteer
self-nominate
over
the
next
two
weeks.
Okay,
great
super
does
anybody
else
have
anything
I
mean?
I
think
I
already
already
did
any
further
comments
on
that.
A
Okay,
let's
move
along
then
to
the
auditing.
Google
account
access,
so
nothing's
happened
in
that.
For
about
six
weeks
I
mean
I
would
like
it
to
be
audited.
I
assume
the
foundation
has
audited
it
or
is
auditing
it
I'm
kind
of
inclined
to
just
I
mean
either.
We
should
be
doing
something
to
get
more
information
or
we
should
just
remove
it
from
the
agenda,
but
just
kind
of
like
having
it
as
this
item
that
recurs
is
kind
of
not
not
not.
A
You
know
it's
it's
it's
not
it's.
It's
served
its
purpose,
but
what
do
we
do
now?
So
I
guess
my
inclination
would
be
I'll
follow
up
with
brian,
like
an
email
and
I'll
report
back
next
week,
unless
somebody
else
has
another.
A
A
Okay,
it's
in
the
minute,
so
it's
official.
Let's
talk
about
strategic
initiatives
unless
there's
anything
else.
To
add
to
the
agenda
which
I
forgot
to
ask
at
the
beginning:
mateo
since
you're
here
is
there
anything
about
core
promises.
G
Nope,
no,
no,
no,
no,
no
progress
or
maybe
slight
progress,
but
you
know
those
takes
it's
long
progress.
So
with
this.
E
I
would
say
that
there's
a
few
other
minor
bits
of
progress
like
the
streams
in
stream
api.
Now
the
internal
functions
like
underscore
construct
underscore
destroy.
A
Okay,
anything
else
all
right,
let's
see
here,
michael
zazo-
is
not
here,
so
can't
talk
about
v8
currency.
Unless
someone
else
can
pick
that
one
up.
E
Yeah,
you
know
all
the
active
you
know
all
development
is
in
pull
requests
on
the
main
repo.
So
you
know
people
can
follow
along
there.
It's
just
ongoing.
A
All
right,
startup
performance,
joey
wrote
that
still
working
on
upstream
v8
issue
nothing
new
to
update
and
then,
let's
see
here
build
resources
michael's
not
here,
and
then
I
skipped
modules
and
looks
like
there's
some
stuff
to
report
there.
Do
you
want
me
to
read
it
or
do
you
want
to
talk
about
it
miles?
Yeah.
D
I
can
introduce
it
so
there's
a
conversation
around
in
esm,
we
removed
a
default
extension
resolution
algorithm
and
resolving
from
folders
to
resolve
the
index.js.
That
was
very
intentional
for
a
number
of
reasons
that
discussion
has
reopened
this
week
and
there's
been
some
discussion
around.
You
know
like
whether
or
not
this
was
the
right
choice
or
not.
I
think
the
opinions,
at
least
in
the
team
are
split.
D
I
I
think
personally
and
this
this
is
just
a
high
level,
that
I
could
be
off-
that
there
are
more
folks
who
agree
with
the
behavior
that
we
landed
on
than
would
like
us
to
revert
back
to
the
former
behavior,
although
I
think
there
is
also
a
disproportionate
number
of
the
members
that
are
like
node,
core
maintainers
and
some
of
the
members
of
the
modules
group
who
are
not
maintainers
are
part
of
the
camp
that
would
like
to
see
the
behavior
brought
back
at
the
moment.
D
I
don't
believe
that
we
are
going
to
be
looking
at
making
large
changes
to
the
implementation,
but
just
wanted
to
make
folks
aware
that
that
conversation
has
kind
of
come
back
up
again
and
it
actually
came
up
because
we
were
doing
a
clean
up
of
the
issues
and
someone
pinged
the
thread.
Saying
hey:
can
we
close
this?
So
you
know
that
that's
a
story
is
all
this
time.
D
There
is
a
discussion
around
package
exports
in
like
that
resulted
in
feedback
from
some
developers
that
were
surprisingly
broken
on
12.x
with
the
unflagging,
and
that
discussion
is
being
brought
to
the
release
working
group.
This
particular
scenario
was
very
much
in
line
with
breakages
that
we
were
expecting.
D
My
take
on
it
personally,
which
folks
may
not
agree
is
this
is
totally
reasonable
and
within
expectations,
there's
a
new
feature,
that's
being
used.
It
was
released
in
december
major
release
of
node
fetch
where
they
did
break
an
interface,
but
it
was
broken
in
a
semver,
major
change.
The
project
is
able
to
fix
this
and
there's
an
open,
pull
request
that
would
bring
back
this
behavior.
D
So
the
only
way
in
which
this
behavior
would
not
continue
to
exist
would
be
if
it
was
intentional
on
behalf
of
the
project,
so
there's
ways
to
remediate
this
without
node
getting
involved
at
all.
D
I
don't
see
this
personally
as
any
different
from
a
project
adopting
a
feature
that
we
put
out
in
assembler
minor
of
12,
which
we
do
all
the
time
if
any
new
feature
is
introduced
in
a
semver
minor
of
an
lts
release
and
that's
adopted
by
a
package
that
will
break
older
versions
of
that
lts
release
that
don't
have
that
feature.
I
mentioned
this
mostly
because,
unless
we're
looking
at
revisiting
our
entire
lts
process
around
december
miners,
I
don't
personally
think
that
this
is
something
that
requires
extensive
revisiting.
D
At
the
same
time,
though,
this
one
particular
case
of
the
package.json
seems
to
be
one
that
is
confusing
to
folks
that
in
unintuitive
and
the
modules
team
is
continuing
to
discuss
whether
or
not
we
want
to
have
a
slightly
better
remediation
or
ability
for
folks
to
get
access
to
the
package
json
of
a
package
that
has
exports,
that's
not
explicitly
exporting
it.
A
Thanks
miles
matteo,
I
dropped
a
question
for
you
in
the
chat
just
fyi.
A
Okay,
all
right!
Well,
thanks
miles,
I
copy
pasted
your
your
your
comment
about
all
of
this
in
from
the
issue
of
tracker
into
the
minutes.
Hopefully
that
will
suffice
and
that's
it
for
strategic
initiatives.
I
think
I'm
gonna
just
check
in
with
people
who
we
haven't
heard
from
during
this
meeting
to
make
sure
there's
nothing
else
to
talk
about,
and
I'm
gonna
do
it
in
the
order
that
I
see
them
in
my
zoom
session
here
so
tobias.
Is
there
anything
we
need
to
talk
about.
A
A
E
Just
as
a
heads
up
for
a
future
tsc
meeting,
a
male
github
user,
arcanist
yeah,
I'm
involved
with
the
project,
has
put
together
a
prototype
implementation
of
a.
E
Considered
a
package
manager
manager
that
you
know
would
basically
allow
us
to
ship
support
for
not
just
npm
but
also
yarn
pnp.
These
other
things
there's
a
lot
of
details.
It's
a
very
complex
thing
in
a
future
tsc
meeting.
What
I'd
like
to
do
is
see
if
we
can
invite
him
to
come
in
and
give
a
demo
and
talk
about
it,
so
everyone
is
aware
of
what
it
is
and
what
it's
doing,
because
one
of
the
questions
that
I'd
like
to
tackle
later
on
is
potentially
adopting
it
within
course.
E
So
there's
a
lot
to
it.
I
know
that
was
you
know
that
you
know
what
I
just
said
probably
raises
more
questions
than
and
that
than
answers,
but
just
as
a
heads
up,
but
I
would
like
to
invite
them.
A
So
maybe
it
makes
sense
to
open
an
issue
and
tag
it
and
tag
the
I'm
sorry.
I
didn't
quite
catch
the
name,
but
the
person
that
you
want
to
invite
and
then
we
can
sort
of
sort
out
if
we
want
to
put
this
on
the
agenda
or
if
we
want
to
like,
create
a
separate
meeting
just
to
discuss
that
or
something
I
will.
A
I'm
gonna
I'm
gonna
poke
around
github
and
the
internet
for
that
when
we
get
off
of
this,
but
thanks
for
bringing
that
up
anything
else
before
we
sign
off
the
live
stream
and
stick
around
for
the
private
segment.
Anybody.
A
All
right:
well
thanks
everyone
and
I'm
gonna
turn
off
streaming
and
we'll
we'll
pick
things
up
and
for
the
internet
folks
see
you
next
week.