►
From YouTube: Node.js Technical Steering Committee meeting 16-01-2018
Description
A
A
So
it
doesn't
sound
like
there
are
anyone.
So
let's
go
to
the
first
issue
on
the
agenda,
which
is
ich.
It's
full
request:
two:
five:
zero,
zero,
eight
and
I
believe
that
this
was
tagged
by
for
the
TSC
a
a
while
back
and
at
the
at
that
time
there
were
no
reviews
or
anything
like
that.
So
no
approvals
or
comments.
But
since
then
there
has
been.
There
are
at
least
two
approvals
and
there
are
two
reviews
so
I'm
not
exactly
sure.
A
A
So
we'll
go
to
the
next
item,
which
is
node
module
version,
4
electron
major
releases,
and
this
is
issue
six
five,
one
and
I'm
not
sure
that
anyone
really
involved-
and
this
has
is
on
the
call
today-
and
does
anyone
have
any
background
information
about
this
one
so
with
the
risk
of
maybe
being
incorrect?
A
Packages
that
were
built
with,
for
example,
electron
3.
They
had
a
specific
note
version,
I,
don't
know
the
exact
one
and
they
included
the
node
module
version
in
it.
But
after
that
they
also
like,
since
there
were
no
changes
like
in
from
between
electron,
3
and
electron,
for
the
node
version
used
in
both
of
those.
A
There
had
not
been
any
ABI
changes
for
like
in
node
itself,
so
the
node
module
version
hadn't
been
updated,
but
for
electron
there
were
API
changes
because
they
change
from
I
think
a
dual
system
and
they
also
change
from
open
it.
Cells,
boring
SSL,
and
that
meant
that
there
are
failures
when
they
try
to
link
packages
that
were
built
for
one
version
against
the
other.
So
what
they
are
requesting
is
to
have
specific,
node
module
version.
A
So
they
can
identify
these
types
of
issues
and
have
it
fail
out
preview
before
that
before
it,
that
the
dynamic
linker
actually
gives
them
an
error?
And
what
they're
asking
at
work?
What
the
issue
is
asking
about
is
to
make
a
decision
between
either
having
these
versions
in
the
node
version
header
or
if
we
should
have
them
in
a
document
that
gets
updated
and
that's
what
rod
was
suggesting
and.
A
B
There
were
several
opinions,
I
mentioned
in
the
github
issue
and
I.
Don't
think
that
this
deck
returned
true,
because
we
don't,
we
do
not
have
quorum,
and
there
is
not
anyone
here
on
the
call
who
have
been
active
in
the
previous
discussion.
So
we
in
my
opinion,
you
should
defer
until
we
have
a
quorum
and
when,
until
there
will
be
someone
from
the
previous
discussion
on
the
call
so
yeah
my.
A
A
B
A
A
And
next
one
is
the
strategic
initiative
which
is
issued
for
2-3
and
to
them.
Well,
the
first
one
is
modules,
but
miles
is
not
here.
This
one
is
and
an
API
that
Michael
Dawson
is
not
here
and
OpenSSL
evolution
is
abroad,
I,
don't
think
you
know,
and
workers
and
a
smokier
error
messages
is
not
here.
Governance.