►
From YouTube: 2021-07-14-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
So
welcome
to
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
meeting
for
june
14th
2021
we'll
follow
our
standard
approach
of
going
through
the
agenda
in
the
issue
that
was
in
posted
in
the
repo
which
is
issue
one
zero,
five,
four
before
we
get
started,
does
anybody
have
any
announcements
that
they'd
like
to
share.
A
Announcements,
if
not,
we
can
move
on
to
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates.
I
don't
have
any
board
meeting
updates
this
week.
I
think,
on
the
cpc
front,
I
can
fill
in
and
backfill
a
little
bit
on
that.
A
A
couple
things
that
are
going
on
that
people
might
be
interested
in
is
one
is
discussion
around
the
the
what
used
to
be
called
the
travel
fund
now
now
being
seen
as
a
community
fund,
and
so
there
is
some
workshopping
and
brainstorming
going
on
into
other
things
that
that
fund
might
support
so
things
like
potentially
certification
scholarships.
A
So
if
you
have
an
interest
in,
you
know
the
the
the
community
fund
you
know,
travel
obviously
remains
one
of
the
core
things
that
it's
going
to
be
used
for.
A
But
if
you
have
an
interest
there
in
terms
of
some
of
the
other
things,
that's
a
discussion
you
can
get
involved
in
with
the
cpc
and
the
other
thing
is
kind
of
the
the
sort
of
in
the
work
work
session
working
sessions
is
the
sort
of
technical
strategy
to
kind
of
explain
how
the
different
projects
fit
in
what
kind
of
areas
are
important
to
the
javascript
ecosystem
and
stuff
like
that.
A
So
that's
what
I
have
on
the
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates.
I
don't
have
anything
like
from
the
node
project,
saying
hey:
we
need
to
bring
this
to
the
board.
So
if
there
is,
you
know,
let
me
know
otherwise
we
can
move
on
to
the
issues
tag
for
the
agenda.
A
A
A
A
Okay,
in
that
case,
I
guess
we
can
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
rename
default
branch
from
master
domain
or
something
similar.
So
that's
an
ongoing
effort.
You
know,
I
think
we
continue
to
make
kind
of
like
slow
progress
across
some
of
the
easier
projects.
A
You
know
the
point
where
we're
going
to
have
to
tackle
some
of
the
bigger
ones
so,
but
I
don't
think
we're
quite
there
yet
once
we're
there.
Maybe
we
can
bring
that
up
here
to
sort
of
figure
out
how
we
might
tackle
some
of
the
the
ones
where
it's
probably
going
to
be
a
bit
more
effort,
but
I
can
see
you
know
out
of
100
we're
probably
down
to
10
or
15
left,
but
sort
of
slow
ongoing
progress
on
that.
D
I
I
had
a
mind
to
help
with
that
on
a
few
reports
as
well.
I
did
not
get
enough
time,
but
I
will.
I
will
continue
to
look
for
bandwidth.
To
help
on
that
front
sounds
good
thanks.
I
have
a
question:
that's
not
directly
related
to
the
initiative
as
such,
but
when
we
switch
from
the
master
branch
to
the
main
branch,
what
happens
to
the
master
branch?
Will
it
get
deleted,
replaced
with
main?
So
what
will
happen
to
the
subsequent
pushes
to
the
master
branch
like
git
push
upstream
master?
A
That
is
a
good
question.
I
mean
I
thought
that
we
were
basically
renaming
it,
so
there
might
be
some
redirection.
B
Github
interface,
there
may
be
like
pull,
requests
will
be
like
you
know,
rebased
to
or
you
know,
set
to
the
new
branch,
I'm
pretty
sure.
But
I
guess
we
should
check
that.
But
we
looked
into
this
a
long
time
ago.
Yeah,
but
but
my
impression
from
from
the
repros
we've
done
so
far
is
that
is
that
if
you
don't
change
your,
if
you
try
to
push
to
master
you'll,
be
told
no,
and
it
doesn't
that
that
branch
doesn't
exist
or
something
like
that.
B
But
somebody
else
might
know
better
than
me.
I'm
just
yammering.
D
B
I
mean
we
could
we
could
set
up
a.
We
could
set
up
a
repo
just
specifically
to
test
this,
if
we,
if
we
want
to,
if
we,
if
we
want
to
find
out
just
create
a
create
a
repository,
throw
in
a
few
commits
change,
then
you
know
set
up
our
local
stuff.
However,
we
want
and
then
change
the
name
and
see
what
happens.
A
D
E
E
D
B
E
C
C
A
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
migrations
of
core
modules
to
primordials.
This
is
three
three:
zero:
six,
nine
seven.
A
F
I've
tried
to
to
put
my
my
thoughts
on
the
the
issue
comments.
I
don't
know.
I
feel,
like
other
people
need
to
to
talk
on
that,
because
my
my
point,
I
think,
is
it's
pretty
straightforward.
I'd
like
to
continue
with
the
status
quo,
so
probably
other
people
should
distribution
to
move
forward.
F
As
an
alternative,
I
also
propose
to
restrict
pre-modules
to
a
certain
part
of
not
cores,
so
folks
have
a
thought
on.
F
A
F
I
guess
yeah
we
might
need
to
end
up
with
the
vote,
because
if
there's
no
trade
trade-off
coming
from
the
discussion.
A
A
Right:
okay,
I'm
just
thinking
so
maybe
we're
not
gonna
resolve
it
in
this
particular
meeting.
But
we
need
to
think
about
some
next
steps.
So
I'd
say:
let's:
let's
leave
it
on
the
agenda.
Maybe
next
time
we'll
have
a
different
group
of
people
where
some
like
there's
there
are
some
people.
You
know
with
concerns
and
stuff
in
the
in
the
issue,
but
none
of
them
are
here
to
sort
of
carry
on
the
discussion.
E
A
Okay,
so
moving
on
to
the
next
issue,
so
resulting
from
cpc
voting
member.
This
is
one
zero,
four
three,
so
just
mary's
busy.
So
you
know
basically
looking
I
think
this.
You
know
this
issue
is
here
to
say:
hey
do
we
have
anybody
else
interested
from
the
tse
in
becoming
the
the
cpc
voting
member
I've
seen
a
few
questions,
but
are
there
any
questions
for
people
here?
I
I've.
You
know
I
attend
most
of
the
meetings,
so
I
can
kind
of
answer.
A
Any
I
guess,
if
there's
any
anybody
has
an
interest
you
know
feel
free
to
reach
out
for
me
behind
the
scenes.
I
guess
there's
no
requirement
for
us
to
have
a
cpc
voting
member.
We
have
the
the
no
project
test.
Two,
so
joe
is
the
one
that
was
elected
by
the
the
community
committee.
A
You
know
so
I
guess
we
could
figure
out
as
a
cpc.
If
there's
nobody
who
has
time
or
or
interest
what
we're
going
to
do
on
that
front.
But.
A
A
But
yeah.
B
Let's,
let's
leave
the
cpc
stuff
on
the
yesterday
on
the
agenda.
If,
if
nobody
else
wants
to
do
it,
I
I
I
might,
I
might
be
willing
to
do
it
in
a
few
weeks.
I
I
I
think
it
would
be
good
for
somebody
else
to
to
do
it
because
yeah
for
various
reasons,
but
but
I
could
I
could
I
could
I
could
do
my
do-
do
a
minimal
a
minimal
job.
If
nobody
else
wants
to.
A
Okay,
thank
thanks
thanks
for
that
and
and
we'll
so
we'll
leave
it
on
there
for
a
few
weeks
to
see.
If
anybody
else
shows
some
interest
and-
and
I
can
you
know
like
I
said
since
I'm
I'm
involved-
there
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me,
because
I
can
give
you
some
more
direct
experience
that
kind
of
stuff
you're
on
the
edge
okay.
So
the
next
one
is
number
one
zero,
four
one
which
is
to
be
or
not
to
be
in
core.
A
We
talked
a
little
bit
about
that
related
to
when
we're
talking
about
the
future
of
the
http
client.
I
have
been
seeing
this
sort
of
ongoing
discussion
there.
G
G
Issue
and
just
to
kind
of
get
a
reaction,
and
I
might
think
some
people
that
might
be
interested
just
to
so
that
people
see
that
and
then
set
up
a
meeting
for
whatever
works
for
people's
schedule.
A
Thanks
yeah,
I
see
that
as
the
the
comment
in
the
last
the
end
of
the
issue.
So
thanks
for
setting
that
up-
and
I
guess
you
just
if
somebody
is
interested
just
go-
do
a
thumbs
up
on
the
issue
right
or
post
in
the.
E
A
B
I'm
busy
in
the
other,
the
branch,
protection
stuff
and
the
other
issues
so.
A
Yeah,
so
I
see
your
the
last
comment
is
from
you,
which
is:
does
anyone
object
to
creation
of
manual
land
label?
I
think
would
be
useful
regards
who
can
use
cq
open
suggestions
to
for
a
clear
name
by
the
way
if
nobody
objects,
I
plan
on
the
pr
you
responded
to
that.
There's
a
few
comments
on
the
thing,
but
I
think
that's
kind
of
not
related
to
this
specific
question
right.
B
Well,
it
kind
of
is
because
that
was
the
concern
people
had.
Was
that?
Oh,
what?
If
you
know,
sometimes
there
is
a
commit.
We
we
need
it
to
be
landed
manually.
We
don't
want
triagers
to
use
a
label
to
land
it,
and
so
the
idea
is
well.
Hopefully
that
will
hopefully,
hopefully
we
can
automate
that
that
problem
away,
but
until
we
do
can
we
just
create
a
label
that
tells
them
please
don't
land,
this
we'll
land
it
manually.
E
B
So,
and-
and
the
idea
was
that,
if
we
have
that
label
then
maybe
we
can
get
consensus
that
we
can.
You
know
that
that
triager
should
be
able
to
land
stuff.
I
think,
even
without
the
label
tree
out,
you
should
be
able
to
land
stuff,
but
that's
that
that's,
but
you
know
for
the
benefit
of
people
who
are
on
the
fence
who
are
opposed
if
that
gets
them
to
the
to
the
that
gets
them
to.
Yes,.
E
B
F
So
do
not
let
triager
lens
pr
if
we
think
it
should
should
go
to
the
cli
tools.
Only.
E
A
I
guess
I'm
just
trying
to
figure
out
like
that:
okay,
so
that
that's
their,
so
we
create
the
create
that.
A
Do
we
think
that
if
we
need
like
another
call
like
okay,
assuming
there's
a
manual
land
label,
does
anybody
have
any
concerns
just
want
to
be
able
to
to
you
know
see
if
we
see
if
we're
close
like
I
know
I
expressed
some
concerns,
but
I
I
don't
feel
so
strongly
that
I'd
want
it
to
be.
You
know
blocking
forward
progress
if
everybody
most
people
think
now
we
should
just
go
ahead
right.
Mine
were
sort
of
a
little
bit
tangential
anyway,
so.
A
A
So
would
it
be
fair
to
post
in
the
issue
that
hey
you
know,
we
had
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight
nine!
You
know
we
had
nine
tsc
members.
In
the
last
meeting
there
was
no
objections
to
to
treasures
being
able
to
land
commits
or
land
using
the
cia,
using
the
the
commit
queue
at
node.jstsc.
B
E
E
E
E
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
the
next
issue,
which
is
number
617
in
the
admin
repo
which
was
dock
removed,
the
section
on
expert
control
I
actually
went,
went
ahead
and
landed
that
we
had
a
couple
of
approvers
from
each
of
the
tc
and
comcom
and
for
context.
You
know
that
was
something
I'd
added
it
and
request
of
a
previous
executive
director
sort
of
long
out
of
date
and
brian
did
add
some
links
to
the
the
open
gs
foundation
which
handles
it
in
a
different
way
for
us
now.
A
C
A
Quick
note
there:
okay,
so
going
just
looking
through
the
list
of
the
people.
We
have
here
build
resources.
I
I
don't
have
anything
on
that
front
and
probably
won't
for
a
while
and.
A
A
Might
make
sense
yeah
it's
kind
of
like
something
we'd
like
to
do,
but
you
know
we've
kind
of
we've
tried
and
you
know
yeah.
I
know
yeah,
let's,
let's
do
that.
Okay,
no
point
just
saying
we're
not
doing
anything.
For
now
this
is
agreed.
We
should
close
for
now.
Okay,
I
will
go
ahead
and
submit
a
pr
to
do
that.
Oops
and
I
just
put
it
in
the
wrong
place.
A
I
guess
semi-related.
I
will
have
it
on
the
agenda
for
next
next
week,
but
since
times
rotate
and
different
people
can
make
different
ones.
What
I
would
like
to
just
make
sure
people
are
aware
of:
is
this
one,
which
is
we're
planning
a
mini
summit
for
the
next
10
work
that
we've
been
doing
so
I'll
just
paste?
This
issue
here
in
case
anybody's
interested
you
know,
has
necessarily
wanted
to
come
to
the
regular
meetings,
but
would
be
interested
in
coming
to
the
mini
summit.
There's
the
information
there.
A
A
If
not,
okay,
so
let's
close
out
thanks
if
everybody
can
stick
around
after
I
stop
the
stream,
but
thanks
for
everybody,
who's
watching.