Node.js Technical Steering Committee, 9 Feb 2017

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 2017-02-09 Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

Description

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/207

A

We're live now.

B

This call is being recorded, welcome.

C

To the node TSE meetings for what is today, februari ninth already.

C

Looking at the agenda, I've got a few item on the agenda discuss, so we.

D

C

A quick stand up: if anyone has anything tsc related, we can make it abbreviated market or through everybody. Just if.

D

You do have something.

C

To you see related you'd like to discuss Senate's, let me know.

B

Quick update from the iphone the community committee, so the Charter is kind of coming along, looks like it's probably going to be ready to be approved by the board pretty soon so something to keep an eye on I'll. Let you know when that happens,.

A

So did was ever like a point for that where it became not investigate. It's cuz I mean I.

C

Needed to go through I think 11, more posters of foundation on board great Brian. Did that happen on the glass meeting.

B

I, don't think so. I think they're waiting for us to finalize the Charter. There's still a few outstanding comments on the PR. Nobody, I might sell dancer. Jeremiah's question, I understand, is the point where it went from investigate, investigate or eat when we were doing this was aboard me like, I want to say two or three board meetings ago, but it was at a board meeting where I think they decided to do that at.

E

Least, that's my. The board hasn't actually decided to do anything here. It's um essentially still an investigation or proposal. So the board has not taken a decision with anything the once. That thing is ready, then I guess the board will have a vote to say. Look let's make this thing happen.

C

I see anything else on the stand ups or so, and I'm going to make sure if we need to get back to the community stuff. You know when I give us time to talk about it, make sure we get there to stand up before we get to problem. It's.

F

Not really me, but no report 200 was released a couple days ago. So there's something put in your uh your weekly weekly report: Jeremiah dip it in the nodes over.

E

C

Cool um alright, so.

G

C

Last: okay, sorry.

G

The one thing I just wonder: I, don't know if this is right venue, but the one thing I have in my my plate to do is to try and push forward getting a common and cam ID so that we could, when we do those kind of releases we can do under.

A

Oh yeah, um so that reminds me the NPM ID for no Jess or note I think it's no jess is I. Think crist's reserved that Chris Dickinson, so I could try to talk them again about transferring on. Okay is yeah, I mean I want to be like sure, want that let's decide I.

G

Think we should have it so that when we publish these modules, like node report, there's a number of people who can do it, it's under control the foundation instead of the individuals and yeah I, think that applies to that ll node and probably some others as well. Now.

A

G

A

There's like a difference between mpm orgs and users, I. Think, though, if it's under the order, I think it's always namespace. I don't remember the details exactly because that wouldn't be what we want. We want it as a top-level namespace, probably on NPM. Yes, then we want have like a node jess user of some sort. Essentially, I think you.

G

Know: okay, like it I mean. If, if we're all in agreement, I can go in just try and create well I guess figure out how we should do that and make the proposal.

C

G

C

Good see what Chris or, if you're from already has two yeah.

G

Deal well yeah, if you.

H

A

He already has, is he.

G

A

Well, yeah I'm, not sure if I can really guarantee response room, so we might need to contact mpm directly if we want by a namespace or more um okay, I. Think.

C

We probably want users.

G

A

Called noches, though, I think I knowi to look into how maybe Michael you can actually look into how mpm orgs work and make sure that's the idea we want or not yeah.

G

I'll, try yeah, that's not saying I'll try and put together a proposal that says here's how it works and let's do this.

G

Okay, sorry, wait back to the regular agenda. I have.

H

One other comment: I did a PR to add Ashley Williams to the meeting agenda. Creator. I, don't know if that Pierre was accepted or not, but she'll be invited as an observer. Moving forward.

G

29, it entered the.

H

Invitation, yes, dear.

C

I did added to the invitation for today that are happy notice'.

H

And might be too short or no. She didn't make it today. Yeah.

C

This is Michael I. My.

E

C

A review of last meeting security work group. We talked about that. We talked about subversion management, nvm talk about the copyright which is on the agenda again today, and we have an update for that. We talked about to the revised membership rules, PR, which we will also talk about again today.

C

Talk about a couple other issues, the general day to the member trouble fund meeting times in the community committee. So quite a few things. What I think there's still some of these are still on the agenda for today. So, um okay, so first item on our agenda is PSC issue: 205 nominating joshed through the TSE josh itself nominees, which.

F

Had any objections it doesn't do ah cracy, so I pictures I better. Take the initiative that.

C

I'm trying to remember what our rules are for adding if there's anything minimum threshold we need for adding somebody. Women vote.

H

uh We've just no buttons wait. Connette first ask if we are officially ready for this because I know a cheap. We suggested the charter change, but I don't believe the board has approved the charter change well,.

C

This is for for adding somebody, you know this is adding Joshua's, isn't the actual membership rules so be.

H

Sure to write captioning in Hut well, hang up has always been like the weirdest with what is the wording was in the Charter.

C

Whole level run. Are we some of the membership rules weren't in the Charter, though I thought the membership rules were actually in the tsc governance document, which isn't a board level change. That's the tsc little change, yeah yeah.

H

Well, the revised membership rules, where the charter change yeah.

C

That's different we're basically just talking about adding adding Josh I, don't think we need a minimum vote. Oh well,.

B

Then the Charter right now, the one- that's that's ambassador and it says the TSU may add additional members to the tsc by a standard, tsc motion and vote, which I interpret to mean a fifty percent.

C

And what ya, by.

D

C

Tfc process, though so, if know, if nobody objects, you don't need to vote. It's just like any other term right right, but.

E

But since we have a TS see that is much larger than the attendees here, it's not just going to be objections. In this meeting. We have to make sure that we call a vote on github and get input. Those people, one of the hang-ups, has been we've, been waiting to sort out their membership rules so that we can ask people to leave and then a dozen people on so I think what we should probably do is just call it a boat on github and then get yeah. That's it soul.

C

E

C

D

C

Clear on this, you don't have to call for a vote unless somebody object. So if nobody's.

E

C

The time window you don't have to call river what.

E

We need is the time window here, because nothing has been triggered.

C

The Charter says in Section eight voting requires two thirds of the members of the TFC to pass the two points: their territory and adding or removing membership. Etfc James.

A

C

A

We do actually need to vote to hide or remove members. Okay,.

C

So wait so for Josh we're going to open that up as a vote and kofa okay, criticism charter. You.

F

Could do it in private or something went up? You know if you don't want me that Oh first.

H

I want to say, I'm, extremely welcoming, Josh to and I think everyone is oh yeah we're just trying to get the paperwork. Correct and I'm still the firm belief. The way I read the bylaws it's not allowed, but people are free to disagree with me on that.

C

um Hey so so we are actually revising the Charter here, the CSU charter. Can we remove the two thirds thing and in particular well, while we're in there I realized today, if sends us about membership changes in general, which would include removing people even if they self nominate to remove themselves.

C

So we may want to put some language in there that if somebody asked to remove themselves, it doesn't need to go to a boat. They can just remove.

D

My totally we just.

C

Already there I think that language is already there for that. It's.

C

See voluntary resignation is already covered, um yeah, okay,.

D

C

Maybe we're mattia see by voluntary resignation or by standard TS emotions. Okay,.

G

C

Is required if I we are removing somebody, then yes, yeah I, realized today that if somebody objected to to Julian that we would have to put to a vote it that just seemed crazy because link Eve self nominating remove themselves, but okay, great yeah, mr.

C

I, think if I can go back and address to the membership rules, thing where we can take off the two-thirds requirements for adding somebody and just make it a simple majority of participating it as long as there's no objections, I think removing somebody should still be a two-thirds vote, because that needs to be a pretty high bar for having the TSU remove. Somebody.

B

Yeah agree with that as well. Let me, especially since you know the way that the new removal rules work, we're usually asking them to resign. So if it gets to the point that we're going to remove someone- and they didn't resign on their own- that that sort of implies that there's a conflict and some contention there and I think having a high bars really important. In that case,.

C

Okay in unless anybody object, I, don't see any reason why you know we cannot have the the vote in public on the github issue, / gosh, unless anyone feels strongly that I should be a private. Oh.

D

It might be might be good idea to do it in private. Just so, people don't feel pressured into well perhaps differently than they would otherwise.

B

I was gonna, say we could just we could do this over email as well, though, send it out to the it's a TS. You mail, it mailing list. That way. You know we don't have to get everyone into this meeting, which of course is tough, but it's also not super public. One.

E

Of the reasons why, having terrible night individuals to join rather than having anyone nominate is that we can do this in private before it even goes live, and there doesn't have to be that public awkward with this one has worked well that way on the ctc, yep yep and.

D

Even if that means.

E

Even like it would, you know, the a person like like Josh in this situation could ask somebody known anything like we've had those sort of situations before, but as long as it's done in that private channel, which makes it much easier. I.

C

Mean in this case you know just open the issue- it's already it's already in public. So it's already, you know pretty there, where everyone can see it. We can get. A vote in private, now send out an email to the TSE mailing list after this, and we can collect about that way.

F

And it might be worth noting that in the thing, because I actually I think we're having that discussion and it was like. Oh, it looks like any collaborator, so I just did that, but that would help for people looking care if they know better process.

A

No, like I'm, not sure if we have talked about Josh and the tsc at some point in the past and email but uh I think generally, we should try to at least make the boots public in some way.

D

A

We're going to vote on something seems like a good idea to do.

D

B

Maybe we can do it after your time or something it might be concerned with is voting for membership specifically, is that we are kind of like voting on a person and on an individual on it really want to create like personally, that is here, but there's a way. We could do it also with transparency, so maybe after a period of time or something I, don't know.

C

What do we do this? The folks that are that are comfortable voting on the PSC. You have read that dodge open feel free to do so. I will send a email to the TSU list. If folks want to go there, banaras soon, we'll tally. Those up. The final number is we're. Gonna say exactly go to that later.

D

C

D

So it's good week.

E

C

All right any meantime: Josh we love how there's no process I.

F

Love being here thanks, good thanks, everyone.

C

Process can be reaching the rotating um okay, so issue number 195 copy date.

C

This goes into whether we can update the copyright date in our statement. um I do we actually have a date in our copyright in our license? It's.

H

Referring to taste, the many many needs have across all those.

C

H

Do I think most others don't and the Colson really was this fairy tale recommendations, water-saving man.

C

H

Sorry I couldn't quite hear you.

C

Sing typhoons are going to me unless the other one talking.

H

uh Yeah anyway, so it was about the many different licenses we have across the repos and whether we continue to update those dates to say 2017.

H

If we make changes in 2017 or something like that, and so it's something that needs to go to the board to ask illegal to give a actual here's the here's. The final verdict in this is what we do. There's.

C

H

Right now, the.

C

Start this actually raises the larger concern. We should not actually be allowing the individual projects to set their own copyright headers. That should actually be something that has approved to the board since they're the ones actually just wanting to find what that copyright is now with regards to this updated copyright issues that will be talking about soon, but there is a versus copyright, node dais contributors on all rights reserved, there's no date in that, and that's touring and I'm, but I would propose. Is it all of all projects use that same header? In that same?

C

You know that same copyright without any date that kind of it'll just eliminates this issue.

C

So it's a little more complicated than that, though, right because some projects come in with prior history and in order to alter any line that they may have had before, you would need the agreement of the existing contributors also get.

D

C

Project come in under different licenses, so we would at least have to swap out the SPD X reference to the other life yeah yeah I'm, taunton specific about the copyright not to SP DX for.

H

New things that we create, though there is a recommendation, Diane.

B

H

And that is to not have a date there and I think Michael. You may have said we actually just want the SPD X reference only correctly yeah.

C

Drift the xpedx record, employee, yeah.

H

So that's a recommendation from moving forward, but it's the existing ones that were curious about.

C

We saw existing.

H

B

C

Yeah you shouldn't take.

H

Oh, my sorry Michael, but the question is just whether, if if they have a date, if we need to keep updating it as we make, changes in 2017 is that they say it ends in 2016 and we make changes in 2017. What's the official thing that we're supposed to do? Okay,.

C

H

Saying, though, so.

C

In the case that they have a pre-existing copyright line and yet.

D

C

In the new date, what should we do? We need to send that to the board. My preference would be to just remove the dates because it's actually entirely unnecessary, but the board made that the legal committee Mason disagree on that. So we should we'll have to send that over.

H

Yep, that's what this issue is all about.

H

C

Think that gives us for connecting that.

C

It only gives us the next step. What we need to do is make a formal request, so I guess we can do that throughout or Michael for the board to look at this issue.

C

A second part again I didn't we.

E

Need a little late agenda for next week.

C

E

C

Need to put videos so.

D

C

C

Yeah, okay, can you just send me an email with the specific links in it and I'll get into the board deck today, because that it literally has to happen like right now? Okay,.

C

Ok, moving on them issue, 175 formation of the security working group. Does we have any status update women here that can give a status update on that I know, Sam's been primarily driving that.

F

It hasn't been any activity in the repo I think.

D

There was a little bit of confusion, but but.

F

Adam clarify that we could continue crapping while we're waiting for the data transfer, which is what we took two weeks ago, that we were waiting for for that bill of sale to go through and the data transfer I don't know that's gone through, but otherwise that yet nothing has happened. Yeah.

G

I think Sam mentioned that we got like a sample. You know here's the sample format, but that was about it, so I think Michael are in laughter's. You mentioned last time. We met that you thought it was imminent in terms of the bill of sale and data. That's still hey snore, yes,.

C

We we signed it in everything: yeah we just haven't held Adam to get the data. Let me do that right, I'll, just send out an email right now.

C

As far as the foundation is concerned, everything is pretty much done. It's just that the doing the actual transfer in the technical side right yeah.

D

C

Need to get the actual data, the bill of sale was a little bit of ordinary things. Is there anything with eps really.

F

C

F

Let me post in the atom comment yesterday. Actually just put it in the chat. He said yesterday that waiting on paperwork for the foundation at the moment for official things.

F

Edwards, that was there was some pollen was talk with him yesterday. Yesterday,.

C

F

Day ago, yeah.

C

H

C

Okay, um yeah, let me figure out what's going on there, then that's strange! Okay! We need to keep this on the GSU addenda until we have a natural charter.

C

Mythic silence is big enough.

H

Yeah we can remove the label from this for now.

C

Okay, anyone have anything else to say about the security working group for removal.

C

C

Updating the copyright issue 174 so I gave an update yesterday on the I'm, a CTC call. There was a meeting the legal committee meeting last week and participated in a conversation, basically where we're at right now is that once the board looks at it next week should go to be on the agenda will get.

C

The first key are landed that restores the original copyright editor that was removed back and I Oh Jess and just the files are still remaining from that original changes, something like nine hundred or so files that would land and then the second PR that proposes the updated puppy right. Hitter needs to go for review by the board and various copyright holders for approval. We have. We cannot land it until we get that approval.

C

The the go-ahead from the board I have updated that PR that we're now the header is just the copyright line and the SPD X identifier, I, have added at the legal committee's request. I added limping both jayus and cpp lint to verify that header exists in the files in libe and sourced.

C

I also added at the committee's request, some documentation in the collaborator guide, saying that those headers need to be there and that if they, if copper, a header already exists that it cannot be touched without board approval and I got the PR ready to go. It's just pretty much waiting on the on the board actually say when we can move forward beyond that, there's really not much else. We can do.

D

When you say you need approval of the copyright holder's, do you mean everyone that contributed to note ever hey.

C

Honestly, I don't know that's right, I'm waiting on the board to say what we can do. Oh good. It's.

D

C

To be at least assembly in the hands of the legal committee, so in normally I would say that you probably do need to get all of the contributors but beast, but because- and this is very weird- but um because joint you said that CLA, because this was removed like a lot of people. They can't we do these files, that is when it was removed after I, think removed it.

C

We probably do just need, joins approval on this and not every other contributor, because there's probably very few contributors that contributed in this weird very tiny time span where it had those notices, and there was no CLA right right.

C

D

Don't understand but I think we've talked about this before the CLA didn't have copyright assignment, let's notice, if the drug is really doing you're.

C

Right but it gave them a license to it. It was like an all rights licenses are doing, and that would include the ability to to modify those to notice that, because I.

H

Get anything note.

C

It's far as you're going to come up into for the most part point ninety-nine percent of its going to be. You know. Let people know that we want to make this change and legacy better. Any objections for brilliant. You.

A

C

Need to just make sure that they're, okay with it and that that you know that they're not going to objective it, just follows into it the same thing that yeah we want to make this change. Does anyone object if no one speaks up 10 and we should be good to go, but we still can't move until the legal committee am innocent and the foundation's board right.

F

Instantly foundation would sign off all the fools next week too, or they have to live.

C

So all right next to prevent as far as I know, they are going to look specifically at the first PR that restores the original headers and and then once that is approved, and once we get that landed, then they will take up. The issue of the the proposed change will have to live.

C

F

Sorry, Michael I, muted, you you're back. You were so.

C

Okay, yeah yeah I, just I just don't mean to myself because I needed to make a comment. That's why I was unneeded. So that's been um so my expectation with the next board meeting. Is this they'll approve the first one, because it's fairly uncontroversial though we just need to get this back in and that we did the wrong thing at one point, the second one.

C

They will probably look at it and say: yes, that's the block that we want, like that, looks really good, but defer some some work for somebody to do to go and look up and answer any questions about people that may have contributed it during that time and had conversations to join I'll a kind of stuff. So I doubt that we'll have a revolution on the second one. But I expect a revolution on the first one for sure.

H

C

You know, and if anyone has any like specific questions or concerns, feel free to email and I will forward those on to some of the from the legal committee as well.

H

I'm curious to know if we land the first PR and then additional you know, code P. Ours are accepted after that, and that we want to change it back, because that now add more another window of weirdness where people can contribute it with it in the file. It makes it harder to ever change.

C

It up no it all this stuff is always you know, pretty pretty messy and stuff and we're accepting changes, and what license is just in particular contribution that are or what copyright is an under it any it is it one that the header only is going to exist in the files that are still remaining from the original change right.

D

The original change.

C

Was like fifteen hundred files missing affects about 900, say if we came up and refactored one those files and removed and deleted up file, we wouldn't have to put that copyright hitter in the new files that we've we create from it a refactor from it.

C

It is it's kind of a gray area, but it shouldn't add any weirdness. It's just that block just has to exist in those files of those names.

D

Just be clear and I think I know the answer, but does that mean that we restore the copyright, boilerplate and all files that we inherited from joy, /, node or only files that actually have well that actually have code contributed by joint employees? The.

C

This restoration puts it only and only in the files that still remain, with the same name and the same path from the original change.

C

Okay, so, for example, like we refactored the node JS file right, you know, Jeremih did all that work to pull it out and break it apart in the original change that no jess was source no desk, and it had that copy right here to header at the top that file there's multiple files under live internal right that copyright header is not added to the top of those wayward their wash.

C

Node node underscore crypto deep-sea howre was there in that. It was one of the paths that was changed so that header is restored to the top of that file.

C

D

So I think I follow, but that yeah basically means that it all files it existed in the old repo, get there get ahead of back.

D

C

Now, in the revised version they what the updated header that is reverted. So we pull all of those headers back out of all those files, because it touches test file that such as benchmarks, it is it's throughout. The updated version would just have the lesser copyright, NS pdx identifier, only in the JS files in live and the C D and H headers in source.

C

So there would be no copyright header in any of the test files or any of the benchmarks that kind of thing, so it's a much more restricted set that would have to have this header.

C

But that isn't a revised one, that's you know and that's something at the board. You know that's the thing that would have to wait longer. So no.

D

C

The pain yes, but you know, unfortunately, the process we have to go through. The other thing to consider is that once we do line this in master Michael, we eat a decision. Do we also have to restore this in our release lines? So do we need to backport this 26? We need to back for it to set before.

C

Is letting it master.

D

C

Muted, even though that was not my fault, that was somebody else talking, Taipei I was muted on my phone and limping so.

B

C

What was trying to say is this did come up and there's a bit of a sufficient right now, just to put an investor. Okay, good thank God.

C

Okay, so anything have anything mortis on the copyright issue, any other questions or concerns.

A

Just a note back parts will be interesting for those files for a little while.

C

Yeah, like at least we didn't do any cherry-picking, it's gonna have to be a three week merge, but nothing here goes.

C

Okay, um next issue is 147. Cy was just put back on the agenda. Does it need to be because this is back from November 15 2016? I'm not sure why this is still on.

F

Not sure either hitman, maybe it's relevant or maybe this is an opportunity- disgusted, didn't discussion about another summit collaboration summit which has been happening. Yeah.

G

I think specifically I'm. Not one I should just close that, because I don't see that it's solvent.

A

um I think get up might have messed up on this because I removed the label, but it says I also added and removed it on December 15, yeah I. Don't.

H

Remember this discussing this.

A

Last week and it never got relabeled yeah, it's weird: it's.

C

Labeled, if T, if you didn't it and.

G

It should be the wrong in general, so I'm going to close it all.

C

Right I'm pulling the label back off, though Anthony oh fun, I.

A

Just pulled the label off, don't add, it am plot those forever.

C

It'll never go away. Okay, revised membership rules.

C

Alright, so this one's called out for a boat. It is a charter change, so we have to have two thirds of the titty members weigh in on this, and so I asked you if you haven't done so already, please go to the github hood and take a look just to summarize this. Basically, what this does is it puts an attendance rule on the tsc that, if I don't want to misquote it so ago, if someone does not attend twenty five percent of the Verger scheduled meetings within a six-month period. Basically, we we asked them to.

C

We asked them to consider voluntarily resign if they don't attend any of those meetings within us that that same period, then removal becomes automatic.

C

And that twenty-five percent ends up being at least one meeting every three months and which is pretty generous in here. You know it's just you know. The whole purpose of this is to keep it. You know we've added very difficult. I'm steven corum falls. There are a lot of people on the on that list. Just have not participated, and we need to make sure that we are encouraging that participation in two people that we do have on the list as being voting members are actually engaged.

C

C

Based on the conversation we have a few minutes ago, I will add to this the relaxation of the adding a member rule, so that no longer requires two thirds of a vote to add somebody.

C

What I will do that little bit later on today for the folks that have already voted, we'll just need you to jump back into the thread and say whether that change still, whether it'll still looks good, do or not.

D

To find kind of work that we have different percentages for adding and removing members, but well it's something we can discuss, indicated issue.

C

See if the intent is related to make the bar lower for adding and keeping it high for removing.

D

And what about other things we can, we might photon would still require two fruits they're.

C

The only thing that would require two-thirds at that point would be changes to the jerk, oh great everything else under stability. You.

H

I'm curious, if the turtles that a desire to try and get this approved before monday, so that it can be approved by the board.

C

That would be ideal if we could get everybody to go.

H

To vote on it I think like adds the agenda item like now, so me, I, don't know if we can be optimistic, it'll happen, but otherwise it'll have to wait till the next board meeting to be approved.

C

Let me see how many votes do we actually need for this? The actual number.

C

11 so I'm not going to count Chris because he did resign Chris Dickinson. Let's do the issue today, resigning so there's 11 of us.

C

Yeah I think we've only got maybe about four votes from tsc members in there. What would you really need? A few more.

C

This is probably a good sign that that two-thirds rule needs to go away.

F

hmm Well, that we need to manage the membership fulfilling work, that's kind of what we're tackling.

C

Someone we need one miracle: gonna need the room, so just just some context here. My main problem was a two-thirds rule in general. Is it it creates a bigger barrier to change then of voting against change red so like the incentives around wanting to improve something, it makes it harder for people to want to improve it than it does for people that just want to keep things the same loads about independence in general? That's my issue, so whatever believe it hi I have no I would have no problem, reducing the role or things like that.

C

Even a charter change I do want to keep the bar high for removing a member, but if we wanted to make everything else, including charter changes, a simple majority I'd be fine with that.

C

Also remember that I mean so there's I think there has to be a distinction here between charter changes and governance changes, so we own the governor's document and it's in there for that. It's also there for the Charter, but the trevor also have to get improved by the board. So I don't know why we have like a bunch of additional checks on something that still has to go from board approval. I'm.

C

B

D

I'm totally in favor of.

B

Removing the two-thirds rule for charter changes, but yeah I do agree with James I think we should keep it in place for removing someone and I mean if we do that.

B

The only thing we have left that requires two thirds is removing someone and I think that makes sense to me, but yeah I, like they did removing charge changes as well, just kind of as we've seen here, and it's almost like Neil sometimes, and we can look at changing governor's documents, but on occasion we might get hung up on like maybe just like a sentence or two in the Charter. That would prevent us from making a governance change as well and so yeah I. Think being able to do those easily as well is useful.

B

Yeah I could fic that scenario happening.

C

Okay, so what what I'll do is, I will update this. Pr mex was cool to relax the two-thirds rule for everything, except for removing.

A

C

I'm not hearing any objections on that good.

D

C

Keep it up on the vote for their so I just asked it everyone in case' members. Please make sure you weigh in on that on that said, yeah thumbs up thumbs down whatever and then we'll go from there.

C

C

D

The worldís audience increments, yeah.

C

That's where I was taking other thing as well. Okay, that's the last of our agenda items. I did anyway, I hadn't.

F

Won since we have been here today and its fruit, we could use it and put it in rock. We had talked about making this meeting at a better time so that everyone can attend. Maybe it's a good time to discuss that now.

D

All right, that's it! You I raced yeah. So the thing is that at least me personally, first day night, now isn't a great time and I assume or I can't speak for a-rod, but there for people outside of the United States. This is presumably not a great time, I turn.

D

So my proposal was to rotate it like we do for the CTC now, which and for me personally, isn't great because it means I need to get up at least once every three weeks after six a.m. in the morning, 530 um rots your input.

E

One of the times that it's rotating to at the moment is 3am for me somewhere miss out that 1, I'm completely, which is not awesome.

C

So I mean they text those times to accommodate.

C

Whereas, like I mean, if this group has less people in it in less conflicting time zones, we could maybe pick different times that would appeal to people more right. Yeah yeah I was thinking. We.

E

C

Have this great seats, maybe.

E

Somebody just ace proposed a couple of times. We can try.

C

D

Am 100-percent.

C

For having the meetings at a time, it's more convenient for the international participants. So just if we can work out the details, let's definitely go for it.

B

Yep I completely agree: that's a rotating time or a fixed time, I'm kind of flexible on.

F

Okay, so let's just keep the conversation going to get up sounds like what we're saying. If I get a chance, I'll go through the times and propose something or I guess any of us can.

C

Okay, we're coming up to the to the end of the hour very quickly so wanted to see. If we had any public questions, anybody watching her in the YouTube channel, 11.

C

Your mind, email free, have anybody watching.

A

There's three people watching I forgot this listed for questions earlier.

A

C

You, okay, just give that a minute and questions.

C

Just a quick poll while we're waiting, because I am just like a show of hands- does anyone have anything for private session? Yes,.

H

You, let's experiment me being there are questions for private, is elitist yeah.

C

Yeah, just by a show of hands without going into detail, does anyone have anything for the private session? I have something thing: okay,.

C

You, let's give it another minute to see if I forget any questions and we can close.

A

Anything yet Irma.

A

Miles waves, that's about it! I.

F

Was gonna bring out? I did I mentioned it briefly before about the collaboration summit. There's some discussion about having one around j/s compy you in Berlin. um Do we is there anything? We should do to support that. It's anything we should discuss their support.

D

F

Collaboration summit around j/s comfy you in in May in Berlin, nothing so.

C

That's for wanted yeah, so let me talk about this little bit, so we we have a code and learn happening right and rich and n are driving that we're working on a budget right now the board will end up passing a budget and we'll pay for some stuff that needs to happen out there. If we want to do a collaboration summit, we just need people to drive it and to follow up as well. The money is not the barrier here. It's really getting people to take this on and own it.

C

So if it's something that we do, we want to do and make happen, then yeah we're all for it, I'm, confident that the board would allocate funds for it. It's just. We need people to drive it.

C

You, oh yeah, I.

D

Guess it's good water holder.

C

We're better than that, anyway: okay, oh no,.

D

Never allowed what is it just come say that seemed to be at least a few people that are interested in moving it forward. So we give them a little encouragement.

A

Speaking of which I think miles proposed may be doing something in relation like some sort of Club summit thing in relation to a.

A

Easy 39 meeting in New York that way we could meet with some of them to discuss things.

A

A

C

I think it's just a matter of just putting together the details, so I think has already been some conversation happening on the github around that. So I think we just continue there unless there's something specifically need to take to the board in terms of funding or we use our TFC discretionary funds.

C

I have to defer to Michael and rod on that.

E

It needs repose or first so someone wants to make a proposal and do that. I think this is not a big, not the forum for making a suggestion unless you've got something concrete, so do an issue. If you've got somebody to leave it, then great.

C

C

Okay you're, my one last check any any questions, we're close it nope, okay, already won thanks very much. This is going to close the public portion of the TS equal and anyone I think. Thanks for doing.

A

Thanks for joining.