►
From YouTube: Node.js Technical Steering Committee meeting 2018-06-27
Description
B
B
Okay,
if
there's
no
announcements,
we'll
move
on
to
the
the
items
on
the
agenda,
the
first
one
is
tagged
under
nodejs
build,
which
is
one
337.
So
this
is
a
request
for
elevated
permissions.
That
issue
actually
I
believe
was
while
there
there
was
a
there
was
an
issue.
The
issue
was
open.
There
was
a
doodle
trying
to
get
the
the
key
people
together,
as
Richard
suggested
in
a
previous
meeting.
B
We,
you
know,
let's
try
and
get
the
the
people
that
are
most
interested,
including
rod
to
discuss
that
I
think
that
issue
may
be
closed
because
we
didn't
manage
to
get
the
right
people
and
John's
gonna
be
off
for
a
week
or
so,
but
I
don't
think.
There's
anything
for
us
to
discuss
at
this
point.
I
think
it's
still
up
to
that
group
to
find
a
way
to
get
together
and
move
the
discussion
forward
and
then
come
back
to
this
to
the
TSC.
Anybody
have
any
very
important.
B
The
next
one
on
the
agenda
is
no
js'
node
and
its
buffer
run
time.
Deprecated
buffer
constructor
everywhere
by
default.
I
did
take
a
quick
look
at
this
earlier
in
the
week
and
I
think
it's
it's
basically,
you
know
we're
in
a
new
release
and
somebody's
suggesting
we
do
that
again,
but
I
don't
know.
If
chakra
do
you
want
to
jump
in
that
into
that
one
mm-hmm.
C
B
B
A
Think
of
measuring
the
validity
of
security
concerns
is
really
important
when
we're
offsetting
against
the
ecosystem
of
disruption,
so
I
would
to
feel
comfortable
with
this.
I
would
want
to
see
a
you
know
like
what
are
we
actually
breaking
in
the
ecosystem,
because
I
know
Golf
is
also
something
that
would
be
significantly
affected
by
this
a
and
then
B
I
would
I
would
want
to
see.
You
know
some
specific
use
cases
where
this
is
really
problematic.
B
So
miles
do
you
have
any
concern
in
deferring
the
discussion
till
August
in
terms
of
whether
it
goes
forward
or
not?
It
sounds
like
you
know,
you're
making.
Your
point
is,
there's
gonna
have
to
be
a
real
convincing
case
and
I
guess
you
know
it's
is
it
that
you
feel
we
should
make
that
case
or
not
now
and
take
a
decision
or,
if
is
deferring
to
August
I,
think.
A
Way,
I
think
if
we
want
to
do
this
honestly,
we
should
be
landing
it
as
soon
as
possible
to
get
people
a
chance
to
test
it
with
the
nightly
and
make
sure
that
this
isn't
going
to
be
disruptive
if
we
waited
until
August.
That
still
does
give
us.
You
know
a
couple
months
before
the
major
release,
but
I
do
think
that
we
shouldn't
necessarily.
A
C
A
B
D
D
B
B
Okay,
and
as
we
discussed
briefly
before
we
start
the
meeting,
we're
gonna
leave
the
tracking
issues
to
the
end,
so
the
next
one
is
no
GST
SC
proposal
for
adding
all
new
core
modules
under
scope.
This
is
3d9
I,
think
you
know
my
read
on
that
one
and
I'll,
but
I'll.
Let
everybody
else
comment
and
suggest.
Otherwise
it
is
not.
The
case
is
that
I
see.
Discussion
is
ongoing
in
that
issue
itself.
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
you
know
more
concrete
data
or
or
sort
of
thing
to
make
a
base
of
TSE
decision
on
I.
D
D
A
D
B
A
So
we
had
board
meeting
on
Monday
public
agenda
included,
welcoming
Tracy
as
the
board
member
representing
the
community
committee.
I
gave
an
update
to
the
board
on
what
happened
at
the
collaborator
summit.
Tracy
gave
an
update
to
the
board
on
what's
currently
going
on
with
the
individual
membership
program
and
how
things
are
running
with
the
pompom.
The
board
meeting
itself
was
like
less
than
15
or
20
minutes.
It
was
fairly
low
on
contents
and
things
to
do
this.
B
A
Modules
working
group
moving
forward
lots
of
noise,
lots
of
discussion,
lots
of
stuff
going
on
currently
discussions
going
on
in
defining
the
term
transparent,
Interop,
potentially
stopping
to
use
that
term
and
defining
it
into
smaller.
More
discreet
terms,
there's
also
some
conversations
going
on
right
now
around
hooks
the
and
kind
of
like
different
ways
of
doing
pluggable,
loaders
there's
a
lot
of
proposals
that
are
relying
on
pluggable
loaders
and
so
we're
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
understand
the
problem
space.
If
anyone
is
breaking
apart,
Trent
credit
drop
or
discussing
load.
Let.
C
B
B
E
So
there
is
an
issue
about
the
errors
codes
that
were
previously
removed
and
there
was
some
discussion
about
whether
it
wish
you
keep
them
removed
or
restore
them
back
and
put
them
in
a
separate
section
like
mentioning
that
they
used
to
be
in
court.
So
we
have
some
disagreement
there,
I
think
is.
Is
it
stacked
ec
review
so
either
pressure?
If
people
can
take
a
look,
I
see
it's
per
class,
two
one,
four,
nine
one.
B
B
A
Updates
right
now,
I
think,
there's
still
conversations
happening
and
I
think
that
this
becomes
an
interesting
question
about
like
where
we
draw
the
lines
on
governance.
I,
think
the
conversations
we
were
having
at
the
collaborator
summit,
specifically
around
reevaluating.
What
done
means
is
something
that
falls
in
line
with
this
just
haven't
had
time
to
push
it
forward
just
yet,
but
we
are
spinning
up
new
members
on
the
release
and
LTS
teams
and,
as
that
moves
forward
in
the
LTS
team
has
suggestions
on
how
we
should
change
the
actual
management
of
our
issue.
A
B
G
G
E
B
If
anything,
you
know
it's
like
do
we
keep
that
issue
open
like
if
we're
not
gonna
push
that
as
the
strategic
initiative
I
would
almost
change
the
name,
and
then
you
know,
if
you
think,
we've
got
a
different
strategic
initiative
that
covers
things,
make
something
which
make
an
issue
which
describes
what
it
should
be.
I.
A
G
B
B
A
B
I
guess
the
one
question
that
might
make
our
lives
easier
for
6-8
would
be
you
know,
whatever.
Whatever
changed
that
made
us
require
a
new
level
of
the
depth
of
the
OS
X
development
tools
is
that's
all
enough
that
we
could
do
without
it
or
like
work
around
it,
so
that
we
weren't
forced
to
make
an
immediate
decision
that
that
would
help
I
mean
otherwise.
There's
the
issue
of
you
know
one
getting
machines
that
will
support
the
new
one,
which
is
you
know,
there's
some
issues
around
there
I've
shared
before
the
other.
B
A
A
F
B
F
A
Nb
m6
is
currently
floated
on
the
a
thought,
extinct
branch
ready
to
go
out
in
the
next
eight
release.
Once
we
have
a
we're
ready
to
start
building
in
our
c4
that
we
floated
a
patch
recently
to
fix
an
issue
with
no
chip
and
file
paths
that
had
spaces
in
them.
That's
fixed
upstream
and
ship,
and
the
NPM
team
is
working
on
that.
B
A
Will
not
be
attending
tc39
next
month
due
to
a
conflict,
but
we
have
Gus
Kaplan
going
representing
the
team
and
I'm
sure
there's
probably
some
other
people
such
as
Jordan
Harv
and
who
will
also
be
there.
There
is
a
discussion
in
the
what
week
group
there's
an
issue
about
what
working
group
and
our
approach
to
what
working
group
is
that
we've
reached
consensus
within
that
issue
that
one
of
the
core
things
that
we
really
need
to
work
out
as
a
project
or
some
of
our
core
values.
A
Especially
we
need
to
evaluate
our
definition
of
small
core.
It
seems
that
we
have,
you
know,
phrases
that
we
use
that
mean
different
things
to
different
people,
I'm
in
the
midst
of
drafting
an
issue
for
the
main
repository
for
us
to
discuss
this,
but
I
think
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
really
need
to
do,
especially
when
it
comes
to
open
web
standards
is
decide,
is
part
of
small
core
implementing
web
standards,
whether
it
be
inside
of
core
or
inside
of
the
node
org.
B
I'm
wondering
having
you
know,
followed
a
bunch
of
the
conversations
there
do.
We
think
we
have
a
critical
mass
of
people
that
it
would
make
sense
to
set
up
a
team
who's.
You
know
a
open
web
standards
team.
You
know,
group
of
people
are
interested
in
that
figuring
out
what
we
should
be
doing
as
a
project
and
moving
that
forward.
I.
B
It's
it's
more
like
do.
We
have
enough
people
who
want
to
get
involved
to
work
on
it.
You
know,
there's
one
thing.
That's
to
say:
we
should
be
doing
something
but
I'm
just
wondering
like
do
we
have
enough?
Does
it
does
it
look
like
we
have
enough
people
that
if
we
say
hey,
we're,
organizing
a
team
and
we're
gonna
sort
of
like
start
a
program
of
work,
we'll
have
enough
people
to
contribute
that
to
make
substantial
progress,
I'm.
A
Not
at
the
moment,
convinced
that
that's
necessary
and
primarily
because
most
of
the
time,
when
you're
going
to
these
standards
organizations
or
engaging
it's
over
a
specific
feature,
so
it
seems
more
to
me
like,
for
example,
consul
at
the.
What
way,
if
we
wanted
to
engage
in
consul,
it
would
make
sense
that
there
would
be
a
team
based
around
consul
if
we
wanted
to
engage
and
promise
the
TC
unita
makes
sense
that
maybe
we
do
have
a
team
specifically
around
promises
when
it
comes
to
actually
being
able
to
go
and
participate.
A
There's
no
real
rules
for
what
working
group
you
may
have
to
sign
a
license
agreement
as
an
individual
contributor.
If
your
organization
doesn't
participate
for
tc39,
you
need
to
either
be
an
invited,
expert
or
a
delegate
of
an
organization.
That's
a
member
and
with
the
what
working
group
they
have
somewhat
similar
restrictions
well
make.
The
most
sense
is,
is
having
some
documentation
about
how
to
participate
in
all
these
organizations
and
maybe
like
some
sort
of
either
mailing
list
or
repo,
where
we
can
have
conversations
around
it.
A
But
I
don't
know
that
it
makes
sense
in
formalizing
a
group
unless
we're
directly
engaging
as
a
foundation
and
the
way
that
most
of
these
standards
organizations
are
set
up.
We
really
because
of
the
way
our
foundation
is
set
up
as
a
collection
of
companies
that
they
themselves
are
also
members.
It's
hard
for
us
to
participate,
rich,
rich.