►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/124
* Rod Vagg - https://github.com/rvagg (TSC)
* Alexis Campailla - https://github.com/orangemocha (TSC)
* Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
* 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)
A
We
have
a
private
business
to
deal
with
our
poem
for
that
as
well.
So,
let's
quickly
review
last
meeting
last
meeting
has
a
generators
at
the
same
that
this
meeting
we're
doing
the
defining
node
call
thing
and
also
top
regular
roll
up
reporting
from
active
working
groups.
That's
back
on
the
agenda
again
today
and
I
think
we
have
some
progress
on
that.
A
So
we
have
two
items
that
James
is
what
James
wants
to
defer.
Oh,
is
that
correct
James
we're
going
to
defer
the
moderation
stuff,
yep,
okay,
we're
going
to
remove
two
other
items
from
today's
minutes
and
we're
going
to
get
back
into
defining
node
core
Michael
Dawson.
Do
you
want
to
give
us
an
update
on?
We
were
out
with
that.
A
B
B
B
C
A
Think
we
talked
about
this
last
week,
but
I've
been
taking
about
this
since
then
as
well,
that
we
probably
should
just
detach
the
the
board
part
of
it
and
make
progress
on
our
own.
So
I
know
that
the
whole
purpose
I
was
to
try
and
take
it
back
to
the
board
because
they
they
requested
some
of
this
stuff.
But
if
we
just
push
ahead
for
our
own
purposes
and
report
to
the
board
rather
than
and
expecting
the
board
to
get
back
to
us
with,
you
know
anything
specific.
A
We
might
be
better
off
so
adopting
a
mission
statement
for
ourselves
adopting
a
scope
for
ourselves
so
that
we
are
nesting
area
boundaries
in
our
own.
You
know
what
we're
actually
doing
and
just
moving
forward
independently
and
then
reported
to
the
board
to
say
this
is
wicked.
Let
us
know
if
you've
got
any
feedback
on
that,
but
instead
of
making
it
about
the
board,
let's
make
it
about
what
we're
doing
and
just
trying
to
make
progress.
A
I
think
we're
actually
pretty
close
if
we
just
try
and
roll
up
what
we've
got
with
the
node
core
scope
thing.
So
this
is
our
area
of
focus,
and
you
know
move
on
to
the
next
step,
which
is
looking
at.
How
do
we
best
serve
that
scope
in
terms
of
our
structure?
That's
just
having
a
separate
tier
see
still
makes
sense.
A
C
A
There
is
a
mission
statement.
Well
there's
this
vague
sense
of
mission
in
the
in
the
bylaws.
It's
it's
not
really
clear,
and
it's
not
even
you
know
that
what
form
for
what
we
do
it's,
so
the
idea
was
to
get
the
twittering
to
get
the
foundation
to
adopt
the
mission
statement
that
we
came
up
with
a
number
of
months
ago.
It's
sitting
in
left
a
pull
request.
D
My
understanding
with
mission
statements
oftentimes
when
a
when
a
foundation
is
formed.
You
sort
of
have
like
a
an
initial
draft
of
a
mission
statement
and
you
end
up
revising
it
within
the
first
year
or
two
just
to
like,
once
you've
kind
of
found.
Your
way
up
a
little
better,
so
I
think
yeah
rod
had
tried
to
talk
to
the
board
before
about
the
mission
statement
stuff
and
that's
why
it's
back
here
so.
E
So,
just
just
so
that
everybody
knows
there's
a
bit
of
a.
This
is
one
of
the
big
differences
between
the
501
C
6
status
and
the
501
C
3.
So
c3
is
the
mission
statement
is
like
crucially
important
because
the
the
board
is
essentially
held
accountable
to
it.
4C
sixes,
it's
essentially
a
member
organization,
so
the
members
can
decide
what
the
scope
is
so
long
as
it
doesn't
violate
antitrust
policy
and
I
believe
the
current
one
is
basically
just
to
you
know,
support
and
no
Jas
adoption.
That's
that's
essentially
what
the
missions
david
says.
E
So
there
isn't
anything
kind
of
broader
than
that.
There
isn't
anything
about
how
we
do
that,
but
also
how
we
do
that
and
what
kind
of
mission
statement
that
we
want
to
say
put
on
the
website
or
even
adopt
in
the
bylaws
is
actually
pretty
easy
to
change
an
easy
to
add,
unlike
a
c3,
which
is
kind
of
difficult
to
change,
once
you
set
it.
C
E
D
E
A
A
I
talked
about
the
tsc
autonomy
that
we've
been
given,
and
I
bundled
it
up
in
the
whole
package
of
the
tsc
operates
on
this
first
part
of
the
mission
stone,
which
is
a
long
kiss
gone
through
the
Express
thing,
and
there
was
concerns
about
us,
expanding
scope
that
that
really
sort
of
gave
the
board
to
the
jitters.
So
that's
why
we're
talking
about
now,
but
I
think
the
the
best
part
of
this
is
not
so
much
that
we
get
the
foundation
to
a
doctor
mission
statement,
even
though
that
would
be
an
ideal
outcome.
A
A
And
and
now,
if
we
can
get
the
scope
thing
figured
out,
then
it
might
make
more
sense
when
we
revisit
the
government
stuff,
so
in
tsc
ctc
relationship
working
groups
come,
but
you
know
how
to
defer
authority
to
different
groups.
How
to
you
know
all
that
stuff
I
thing
would
become
more
clear
once
we
sign
this
off,
we
put
in
the
CPSC
refund
say
this
is
this
is
what
our
scope
is.
This
is
what
our
mission
is.
Then
it
is
become
more
clear.
I
think.
A
So,
from
what
I
understand,
we've
left
off
with
the
scope
thing
is
that
we
were
going
to
instead
of
trying
to
use
language
to
define
a
boundary
for
what
could
be
included
and
what's
not
including
node
core.
We
were
going
to
use
specifics
to
to
to
define
it
just
a
bit
of
language,
but
also
did
some
specific,
so
some
lists
of
of
what
we
think
is
included.
So
if
you
could
go
to
issue
number
113
you'll
see
some
of
that
there
and
I
think
that's
where.
Well,
that's
how
we're
going
to
solve
the
difficulties
right.
A
A
13
and
move
on
issue
number
109,
which
was
this
thing
that
we
all
agreed,
was
a
good
idea,
regular
role
of
holding
back
of
working
groups,
and
this
is
how
to
report
to
the
public.
What
is
going
on
inside
the
technical
side
of
no
or
the
node
foundation,
and
it
was
this-
was
blocked
on
me-
bring
together
details
on
what
the
what
the
role
at
what
reports
would
look
like.
We
did
discuss
it
at
the
meeting
on
the
sixteenth
of
June
and
so
I
pulled
out
that
detail.
Put
it
into.
A
Is
your
number
109
we've
and
flesh
it
out
a
little
bit
so
details
about
what
the
reporting
is
that
we
discussed
so
to
move
forward
with
that
I
think
we
should
I.
What
I
can
do
is
actually
turn
that
into
a
pull
request
to
make
a
document
that
we
can
not
exactly
what.
But
then
we
should
set
a
date
and
actually
try
and
get
something
together
and
not
not
commit
to
too
much.
A
A
Yep,
absolutely
and
I
think
I've
tried
to
do
that.
I've
put
some
suggestions
in
there
I'll
make
it
clear,
they're
just
suggestions
and
leave
it
up
to
the
groups
to
really
create
you
know
shape
in
it.
So
it's
not
us,
that's
that
is
being
prescriptive,
it'sit's
them
that
is
forming
what
this
thing
organically
turns
into.
I
don't
I'm
not
getting
my
hopes
up
that
we're
actually
gonna
get
some
really.
You
know
a
lot
of
good
quality
reporting,
just
knowing
what
it's
like
having
to
do
this
kind
of
stuff.
A
So
I
don't
wanna
get
our
hopes
up
here
that
it's
gonna
be
awesome
consistent.
So
I
suspect
we
can
have
to
deal
with
chasing
from
report
to
report,
but
it's
cross
our
fingers.
There
might
be
some
some
individuals
we
can
tap
into
that
are
really
keen
to
do
this
vandalism
kind
of
work.
So
actually
that's
what
I
think
I
forgot
to
do,
which
is
looping
in
the
evangelism
working
group,
because
I
know
some
of
those
people
are
I
really
good
at
this
kind
of
thing
yeah
they
might
be
able
to
help
put
the
thing
together.
F
A
B
A
B
Basically,
you
know
the
issue
there
is
that
there's
a
number
of
initiatives
that
that
group
is
working
on
examples
include
ll
node
node
report,
we're
talking
about
a
javascript
api
friend,
respecting
the
the
core
files.
We
want
to
find
the
right
place
to
collaborate,
so
you
know
so
far.
All
node
has
been
in
a
dupe
knees.
B
Own
repository,
and
you
know,
we've
been
doing
some
stuff
on
no
report
and
we
could
put
it
in
like
you
know,
IBM
run
times,
but
you
know
my
preference
and
I
think,
after
discussion
with
sweat,
the
rest
of
the
group,
the
preferences
that
is
to
certainly
to
have
somewhere
common,
that
we
can
collaborate
not
not
to
force
all
the
work
from
that
work
group
into
those
places,
but
as
an
option
and
so
for
ll
node
and
no
report.
To
start
with.
I
think
you
know
the
discussion
in
the
last
post
mortem
eating
was
well.
B
The
the
first
choice
would
probably
just
be
create
a
new
repo
under
the
know,
Jeff's
organization,
other
options
included.
You
know
creating
another
organization
like
note
post-mortem
and
putting
the
projects
there
and
then
sort
of
the
last
choice
is
to
continue
doing
what
we're
doing,
which
is
you
know,
making
new
repos,
but
just
under
individuals
or
other
organizations.
B
So
you
know
having
having
had
the
discussion
said
well,
our
first
choice
is
to
put
them
under
nodejs
I
know:
we've
been
having
these
discussions
about.
You
know
we
don't
just
transfer
projects
in
so
we
want
to
come
back
to
this
group
and
say
you
know:
okay,
is
it
okay?
If
we
move
those
projects
or
it
basically
moves
the
ll
know
project
and
create
a
node
report
project
under
the
nodejs
organization.
E
So
I
think,
where
we
kind
of
landed
on
the
moving
projects,
and
is
it
if
you
want
to
create
a
new
project
or
any
kind
of
new
repo
you're
free
to
do
that,
as
as
far
as
I
know,
I
think
that's
where
we
landed
with
that
for
transferring
and
existing
projects
yeah
you
want
to
get
kind
of
a
heads
up
from
the
tsc
I
mean
my
preference
for
ll.
Node
would
definitely
need
to
come
into
the
project.
I,
don't
I,
don't
I
mean
people
can
object
to
that.
B
A
E
Project
so
so
we
have
all
of
the
the
defaults
that
are
in
the
TSU
repo
rate,
which
includes
like
the
default,
read
me
and
a
bunch
of
other
stuff.
As
far
as
kind
of
the
working
group
boilerplate,
you
just
need
to
note
that
this
is
under
the
post-mortem
working
group.
It's
not
a
new
working
group
for
that
repo
right,
but
yeah.
It
just
needs
all
the
default
stuff
like
like
the
DCO
like
to
commit
how
much
that
we
have.
In
the
end
the
tsc
repo.
B
G
Thank
the
wording
with
the
documentation.
It's
in
the
the
TF
c-3po
right
now
is
that
if
a
repo
does
not
have
some
of
these
court
documents
in
it
like
the
code
of
conduct
or
governance,
what
that
in
the
default
is
whatever
is
in
the
TC
people
so
for
the
most
part,
it's
kind
of
generally
covered,
but
it's
a
best
buy
and
best
practice
to
have
them
actually
in
the
repos.
C
When
there's
a
suggestion,
so
when
a
project
is
talked
about
coming
in
and
is
favorable
like
ll
node
may
be,
a
the
repo
should
be
prepped,
and
so
you
know
get
these
documents
in
place,
and
then
you
know
it's
like
voted
in
or
maybe
even
just
you
know,
some
look
good
to
me
on
an
issue
or
something
like
that,
just
to
make
sure
that
bases
are
covered
before
it
gets
in
as
things
what
I've
witnesses
after
things
are
in,
the
steps
aren't
often
aren't
taken
after
the
fact.
So
are.
B
B
One
thing
with
the
yeah
like
a
move,
I
think
for
like
ll
knowed.
What
you
want
to
do
is
you
can
transfer
a
repo
and
existing
repo
from
from,
like
in
Japanese
org
to
the
foundation
org.
So
is
what
you're
suggesting
we
just
need
to
add
those
documents
in
while
it's
still
in
his
org
get
some
ill
dtms
and
then
move
to
the
move
itself.
Yes,.
A
Yeah
I
can
go
that
we
did.
We
didn't
do
the
right
thing
with
no
chip
and
it's
still
them
not
in
a
great
status
so
so
maybe
eat.
Maybe
what
we
should
do
is
have
a
any
many
repos.
Once
we
moved
into
the
org
open
an
issue
on
the
tsc
repo
and
we'll
get
the
sign-off
there
and
I
think
we
need
a
meeting
for
it.
But
if
we
can
just
get
smile-
and
that
includes
make
sure
everyone's
happy
with
the
docs
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff
before
it
gets.
B
E
E
No,
no,
no.
We
specifically
backed
out
of
that,
because
you
get
access
to
the
security
repo
and
we
have
a
lot
of
extra
stuff.
Do
you
have
to
do
to
tab
access
to
the
security
repo?
So
essentially,
we
said,
like
we
pared
down
the
number
of
org
owners
just
so
that
we
wouldn't
have
a
bunch
of
you
know,
unknown
people
being
added
to
the
security
repo
without
knowing
it.
How.
A
E
I
A
E
A
H
A
A
Okay,
well,
let's,
let's
pause
for
a
while
and
ask
for
Q&A
if,
as
anyone
is
listening
outside
the
meaning,
that
would
like
to
ask
questions,
please
drop
a
comment
in
the
either
youtube
or
the
tsc
issue
that
we
have
for
this
meeting,
which
is
number
124
in
the
tsc
repo
or
on
IRC.
Where
all
of
this
committee
on.
C
F
Well,
I'm
yeah
I'm,
so
on
the
notes
of
me,
but
I
did
suggest
one
change
those
comic
referring
to
like
travel
and
getting
support
from
the
foundation,
because
I
know
this
thing
you've
done
before,
but
I
couldn't
really
remove
the
details
on
so
Michael.
If
you
have
a
second
could
like
dropping
him
as
I
clarify
that
a
little
bit
I
think
it
will
help
yeah.
E
I
need
to
get
that
worked
out
myself.
It's
it's!
It's
actually
coming
out
of
a
different
budget
line
item
than
last
time,
so
there's
probably
going
to
be
a
slightly
different
process
around
it,
because
the
the
budget
and
the
other
one
is
actually
just
covering
the
infrastructure
for
us
to
run
it,
which
means
that
the
travel
budget
will
come
out
of
the
code
and
learn
stuff
which
we,
which
is
a
basically
administered
by
me,
but
I'd
like
to
get
a
simpler
plot
process
around
it
like
we
have
for
speaker,
stipends
I,.
A
Okay,
let's
close
it
up,
but
I
do
have
a
comment
for
you
in
there
in
the
or
in
the
comments
for
this
some.
This
chat,
if
you
saw
respond
there,
so
that's
that's
all,
then,
for
our
public
meeting
the
next
meeting
we're
going
to
have
we're
going
to
return
to
an
origin
which
would
actually
be
next
week,
so
that
would
be
the
11th
of
august.
So
that's
next
me,
and
so
that's
it.
Thanks
to
everyone
for
participating
and
we'll
see
you
next
week
and
thanks
everyone
for
listening
on
the
live
stream.