►
Description
A
B
A
A
Okay,
if
not,
let's
move
on
to
the
agenda
item
so
the
first
one.
The
agenda
is
no
GS
/
node
nominating
Jewish
ponytail
to
the
TSC.
That's
issued
you
six
186
as
rich
pointed
out
we're
at
the
point
where
we
should.
Basically,
you
know,
confirm
the
nomination,
so
what
I
suggest
is
if
everybody
could
post
their
plus
one
or
or
or
otherwise,
in
the
chat,
we
could
confirm
that
we
have
the
numbers.
A
C
A
D
They
symmetric
cruisers
are
still
present
in
the
list
of
rusev
rusev
attest
that
we
use,
but
Mozilla
out
of
the
box
right
in
the
default
configuration
does
not
trust
them
in
their
browser.
There
is
a
whitelist
of
intermediate
research.
They
do
trust.
I
have
left
some
links
in
the
Tishman
over
to
the
bottom.
That
points
to
the
exact
code
that
we
remove
the
distrust
matrix
source
and
leave
some
each
immediate
certificates
as
well
history.
D
But
basically
we
have
three
options
right
now
that
same
example
kind
Sam
Roberts
and
whether
we
use
the
NSS
surfaced
like
you
do
now.
But
in
this
situation
you
a
trust
in
some
roots
or
face
that
neither
Google
presence
that
now
Normandy.
You
know
my
zero
trust
in
their
browsers
or
we
removed
Matic
posters
continue.
But
in
that
case
you
probably
break
something
that.
D
D
So
my
point
of
being
this
up
today
was
just
to
give
description
so
that
everyone
is
at
least
yourself
what
is
going
on
there
and
also
why
about
nine
people?
You
know
left
plus
one
when
that
distrust
initially
and
I,
think
that
some
of
those
people
are
probably
present
here.
So
in
order
to
know
what
everyone
thinks
about
position
this,
so
that's
all
from
me
for
the
initial
description.
E
E
D
D
A
E
Here's
my
proposal
we
want
to
do
something
at
this,
but
which
turns
out
to
be
a
lot
more
complicated
than
just
pulling
routes
Hertz
out.
So
if
we
leave
it,
as
is
for
now
that
work
towards
a
solution
where
we
either
follow
Mozilla
with
their
embedded
logic
on
if
symmetric
Brut,
but
this
intermediary,
they
trust,
otherwise,
don't
trust
which
we
could
implement
that
just
not
right
now,
weak
or
perhaps
Mozilla
moves
to
removing
them
completely.
And
then
we
just
follow
that.
We
we
have
given
ourselves
permission
to
bump
minor
on
security
majors.
E
So
we
could
still
do
that
in
no.12
during
its
lifetime
and
I.
Don't
think
that
would
be
unreasonable
if
we
had
a
clear
path
as
long
as
we
had
some
sort
of
opt-out
mechanism,
because
I
think
we
can
just
find
I,
think
it's
from
in
a
field,
as
demonstrated
with
the
+1
so
far
doing
this
so
for
now,
I
would
say
unless
somebody's
got
a
lot
of
time
on
their
hands
when
we're
not
doing
anything
about
it.
For
1200.
D
A
E
D
E
D
E
D
C
D
A
F
So
we
had
we
had
the
inaugural
open,
jazz
board
meeting
this
week.
This
was
on
Monday
afternoon
as
part
of
the
you
know,
node
part
of
the
open
source
leadership
summit.
As
of
this
moment
now,
you
know
all
of
the
legal
stuff
that's
required
for
the
board
has
been
done
literally
launched
as
the
open
jazz
foundation.
The
board
has
identified.
You
know
a
handful
of
things
that
are
part
of
the
next
steps,
and
there
will
be
some
communication
coming
out
making
that
more.
F
The
kind
of
biggest
thing
that
needs
to
happen
now
moving
forward
is
the
creation
and
structuring
of
the
CPC.
We
will
continue
to
be
having
on
the
draft
meetings.
For
now,
the
bootstrap
repo
is
still
in
the
nodejs
org,
but
will
likely
move
to
an
open,
jeaious
org
at
the
time
at
which
we
settle
on
a
specific
name
for
it.
My
assumption
is
that
a
lot
of
the
workflow
and
these
kinds
of
edge
cases
will
be
figured
out
in
the
next
meeting,
which
is
next
Monday.
F
F
And
I
think,
like
you
know,
from
the
actual
day
to
day
side
and
Michael's
issue
we'll
get
into
that
like
the
biggest
thing
that's
left
for
us
to
do
is
to
revisit
our
charter,
although
likely
what
that
will
make.
The
most
sense
is
you
know
the
new
foundation
has
a
series
of
like
levels
that
projects
can
come
in
at
and
the
impact
stage
is
you
know
for
those
kind
of
top
projects
that
have
representation
at
the
cross
project
Council,
and
we
will
be
one
of
those
impact
projects
from
the
jsf
side.
F
The
projects
that
raised
their
hand
were
jQuery,
appium
and
web
pack
and
there's
one
more.
The
name
is
escaping
these
documents.
It's
somewhere
dojo,
yes,
dojo,
and
so
you
know,
kind
of
part
of
spinning
up.
The
CPC
will
be
adjusting
our
Charter
appropriately,
but
there
isn't,
you
know
a
massive
rush
to
get
all
this
stuff
done
immediately.
It
will
all
kind
of
happen.
F
You
know,
naturally,
as
part
of
spinning
up
this
new,
this
new
governance
group,
which,
for
those
of
you
have
not
been
following,
anyone
will
be
able
to
participate
in
whether
or
not
they
are
like
elected
members
of
that
of
that
team.
Our
travel
budget
is
unaffected
by
this.
So
you
know
our
travel
budget
will
remain
what
it
has
been.
What
may
end
up
changing
is
the
way
in
which
the
budget
gets
allocated
and
dispersed
and
we're
looking
into
specific
tools.
F
That
would
actually
make
this
a
lot
easier
to
manage
and
clearer
for
us
as
a
project
to
kind
of
do
these
things
I.
Think,
overall,
the
effect
to
us
as
a
technical
steering
committee
will
be
that,
like
a
couple,
things
that
we're
currently
charted
for
that
are
much
more
around
like
meta
governance
of
the
foundation
will
not
really
be
necessary
anymore
when
we
pushed
up
to
the
CPC
allowing
us
to
be
much
more
focused
on
the
technical
governance
of
the
node
project.
F
But
we
have
set
things
in
place,
including
what
the
CPC
meetings
in
town
halls
that
we
have
planned,
as
well
as
like
invited
we're
planning
to
invite
projects
periodically
to
present
to
the
board.
The
intention
from
the
board
as
a
whole
is
that
there
should
be
just
as
much
access
as
there
has
been
in
the
past
for
our
project
and
if
anything,
it
will
hopefully
become
easier
for
us
to
request
things
to
do
things
and
to
collaborate,
because
there
will
be
clear
channels
and
process
in
place
for
us
to
get
those
things
done.
F
So
the
hope
would
be.
You
know
that
introducing
this
little
bit
of
extra
process
will
actually
create
far
less
process,
so,
for
example,
small
this
is
actually
one
of
the
biggest
ones
for
us
would
be
like
our
Charter
and
any
of
the
changes
that
we
need
to
make.
Those
first
bachelor
changes
which
may
be
more
substantial,
will
have
to
go
to
the
board,
but
in
general,
in
the
Charter
of
the
CPC
smaller
charter
changes
don't
actually
require
board
approval
anymore.
F
So
that
would
allow
for
us,
in
the
case
where
there's
like
small
grammatical
errors
or
small
updates,
that
we
would
want
to
do
the
Charter.
You
know
we're
no
longer
waiting
on
the
board
to
make
those
changes.
Another
big
change
into
the
bylaws
themselves
was
the
ability
for
our
board
to
now
do
electronic
vote.
That's
something
that
we've
gotten
from
the
jsf
that
we
inherited
so
there's
things
that
required
meetings
before
that
now
we'll
actually
be
able
to
be
done,
out-of-band
and
the
board
is
fairly
active
right
now.
A
Think
that's
and
that's
all
I
got
for
right
now:
okay,
so
yeah,
let's,
let's
we
can
talk
about
some
of
the
specifics
and
the
later
issue.
But
let's
move
on
to
the
strategic
initiative
review
the
first
one
I
was
hoping
miles.
You
could
fill
us
in
and
I
think
that
it
sounded
like
the
modules
working
group
had
come
to
some
consensus
and
next
directions.
Yes,.
F
F
Hoping
to
have
like
our
intention
is
that
this
implementation
will
hopefully
be
able
to
land
in
nodejs,
12
and
potentially
even
be
back
ported
to
10.
But
it's
something
that
you
know.
We've
done
a
lot
of
work
to
get
this
pull
request
in
early
enough
that
there's
time
for
upstream
review
before
the
cutoff
date.
There's
no
semver
major
changes
in
here
I
mean
we
could
argue
about
semver
minor
or
not.
It
is
definitely
Sempra
major
to
the
es
module
implementation,
but
there's
nothing
as
far
as
I
know.
F
Changes
that
we're
making
outside
of
the
es
module
implementation
itself.
The
biggest
and
most
substantial
change
compared
to
the
current
implementation
is
the
introduced
introduction
of
a
new
type
field
inside
of
the
package.json
inside
of
the
package.json.
You
can
include
type
and
give
module
as
a
value
to
that
type
of
common
guess
is
also
a
valid
type,
but
it
is
the
default
type
in
our
current
implementation.
If
you
give
the
module
mode
to
type
as
the
flag,
then
jeaious
files
are
able
to
be
imported
as
ESM
there's.
F
Also
the
inclusion
of
a
new
dot,
CGAs
extension
specifically
for
the
module
mode,
so
that
you
can
continue
to
import
common
J's
files
and
we're
able
to
do
it
without
lots
of
deep
statting
another
one
of
the
big
substantial
changes
is
file
extension
and
directory
resolution.
So,
in
the
current
implementation,
we're
matching
more
kind
of
the
behavior
of
import
Maps,
which
is
a
w3c
proposal
within
the
WI
CG
group
right
now.
F
It
is
something
that
there's
already
polyfills
in
the
browser
for,
and
it's
on,
track
to
be
implemented
in
the
browser
to
allow
for
bear
imports.
The
big
kind
of
difference
between
our
common
jeaious
resolution
algorithm
and
what
is
supported
from
a
feature
set
within
import
Maps,
is
mostly
around
the
ability
to
import
directories
that
have
an
index
J's
file,
as
well
as
the
ability
for
us
to
kind
of
arbitrarily
drop
the
file
extensions.
F
F
One
other
one:
that's
in
there
that
I
think
is
kind
of
fun
as
we
landed
today.
An
experimental
JSON
support,
there's
being
there's
work
being
done
at
the
what
working
group
to
standardize
importing
JSON
modules
and
we
will
actually
have
as
far
as
I
know
the
first
shipped
implementation
of
what
is
attempting
to
be
specked
out
there.
So
there
will
also
be
an
experimental
JSON
modules
flag
that
you
can
add
that
will
allow
you
to
import
JSON
module
following
the
expected
behavior
of
JSON
modules
in
the
browser.
F
So
that's
another
one
that
comes
in
there
as
well.
All
this
is
documented.
The
pull
request
will
come,
it's
not
huge,
but
it's
not
nothing.
I
am
hoping
that
we
do
not
have
a
ton
of
pushback
from
core
on
how
we've
tried
to
do
things,
but
I
would
very
much
appreciate
if
you
know
people
from
the
TSC
have
any
concerns
with
any
of
the
things
that
I've
brought
up
or
if
you
know
you
see
issues
with
our
implementation.
F
You
know
that
you
engage
with
me
early
so
that
we
can
try
to
rectify
those
concerns.
It's
really
important
to
me
that
we
get
this
in
four
node
twelve.
The
intent
from
the
whole
group
is
that
we
hope
that
we
want
to
unflagged
this
by
LTS,
so
it's
very
important
that
we
get
that
baseline
in
with
12
and
get
this
in
front
of
people
and
get
people
working
with
it.
So
we
can
try
to
get
this
stabilized
in
the
next
couple
months.
A
F
When
I
open
the
PR,
all
the
changes
to
the
docs
are
will
be
in
there
there's
also
separately
from
that
blog
posts,
that's
being
drafted
by
the
group
right
now
that
it's
going
to
be,
you
know
like
a
chunk
of
copy
that
can
also
be
reviewed.
If
you
want
something,
that's
a
little
bit
more
like
prose
and
less
document
less
so
I'll
include
a
reference
to
that
PR.
We
don't
yet
have
consensus
on
all
the
nitpicks
around
the
language
and
the
pros,
but
you
know:
I
I'll
include
references
to
all
the
places,
I'm
also
happy.
F
You
know
there
was
a
lot
of
consensus
building
for
over
a
year
and
so
there's
a
lot
of
different
decisions
that
we've
worked
on
and
it's
been
a
lot
of
work
to
get
there.
So
you
know,
if
anyone
is,
you
know
not
loving
the
direction
that
it
had
gone
I'm
similarly,
you
know
like
please
reach
out
to
me.
I
will
take
the
time
to
kind
of
walk
you
through
how
we
came
to
that
decision.
A
A
C
E
F
That's
the
PR
that
Sam
has
against
ten.
For
one
point,
one
point:
one:
yeah:
okay,
great
yeah.
We
have
a
release
working
group
meeting
tomorrow,
where
we're
just
going
to
be
reviewing
what
the
plans
are
for
the
next
series
of
LTS
releases,
I
believe
from
what
he
said
in
that
issue.
It
looks
like
there's
no
risk
of
ABI
breakage,
so
I
see
that
going
through
without
a
problem.
Yep
sounds
good.
E
G
A
G
G
Yeah
I
mean
like,
for
example,
we
have
this.
This
item
of
reports
of
worker
threads
deployed
in
production
and
I
mean
like
I,
have
that
people
came
to
be
telling
me
about
that,
but
it's
not
nothing
public
or
with
this
action
item
of
framework
adaption
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
but
you're
expecting
there.
Maybe
there
are
a
few
NPI
modules
for
worker
threats
out
there.
H
G
A
H
A
A
I
Ali
yeah,
so
there
was
a
Diagnostics
I
met
at
the
Google
Munich
office
last
week,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
discussion
around
missing
hooks.
There
is,
in
fact,
quite
a
bit
to
cover
in
this
short
summary,
so
what
I
would
do
is
point
people
do
that,
there's
a
PR
for
a
new,
a
Seng
storage
API
and
there's
a
document
that
auks
about
some
performance
changes
that
we're
going
to
make,
including
sort
of
removing
the
need
for
most
users
to
use
the
destroy
hook.
I
A
Is
there
any
chance
you
could
grab
those
two
links,
the
pier
for
the
async
storage
in
that
dock
and
add
them
into
the
minutes
here.
I
really
do
that:
okay,
because
I
might
just
give
people
a
shortcut,
one
less
thing
to
think
about
to
actually
actually
do
it
anything
else.
You
want
that
on
that
front,
that's
what
they
did.
Okay,
the
next
one,
is
open
web
standards,
smiles,
anything
to
say
on
that,
because
I
don't
think
we
have
Joey
today.
F
Not
a
ton
to
say
right
now
there
was
a
new
key
value
store
built
in
for
the
web
platform
that
got.
You
know
kind
of
presented
this
week
that
included
using
a
namespace
that
namespace
was
using
STD
colon
is
the
way
of
clarifying
that
namespace.
You
know,
I
brought
this
up
in
our
tracking
issue
for
adding
namespaces
to
node
I
know.
There's
still,
you
know
a
number
of
altering
opinions
about
how
we
should
go
about
it.
They
just
kind
of
put
that
on
people's
radars.
You
know
this
is
one
proposal.
F
A
A
A
A
Particularly
particularly
important,
the
first
one
is
is
talking
about
how
we
will
elect
representatives
CPC.
The
the
government's
governance
that
was
written
in
as
part
of
the
bootstrap
is
that
there's
two
for
the
project,
so
I
think
we
need
to
agree
with
the
community
committee
on
how
those
are
allocated.
I,
guess
you
know,
the
most
obvious
proposal
would
be
that
you
know
like.
We
have
one
board
representative
from
each
of
the
groups.
A
A
A
A
F
But
there's
also
self
selected
members,
which
are
the
regular
members
and
observers,
which
is
anyone
from
the
whole
group,
and
they
all
can
participate
in
the
meetings
so
like
for
us
at
least
the
way
I
think
about
it.
You
know
us
electing
someone
to
be
that
voting
member.
Well,
on
one
hand,
is
you
know,
like
an
a
vote
of
confidence
that
that
person
is
gonna,
do
a
good
job.
F
It's
in
my
opinion,
much
more
around
like
who
actually
has
the
bandwidth
and
time
to
committing
to
doing
that
job
than
like
being
the
sole
representative
of
our
organization,
because
every
single
person
in
this
meeting,
every
single
person
in
the
project
is
encouraged
to
come
and
participate.
So
I
do
think
that
the
stakes
when
we're
thinking
about
those
rules
are
a
little
bit
different
and
we
may
want
to
you
know
just
think
about
how
how
we
assign
those
roles.
F
It
may
make
a
lot
more
sense
to
be
based
on
who
has
the
most
bandwidth
as
opposed
to
you
know
a
representative
from
each
group,
although
I
do
think
it
will
be
very
valuable
for
us
to
have
a
commitment
from
both
of
our
committees
to
be
actively
engaged
in
the
CPC.
To
be
honest,
like
having
an
active
in
functional
CPC
is
quite
going
to
be
the
central
point
of
like
how
this
new
foundation
is
going
to
be
successful
and
I.
F
Think
I
think
one
of
the
things
that's
really
cool
here
as
well
for
us
too,
or
it's
a
little
tangential.
But
it's
also
like
we're.
Gonna
have
a
lot
of
opportunities
to
reevaluate
some
of
the
things
that
we've
thought
of
as
being
default.
Note
initiatives
to
see
if
whether
or
not
they
make
wit
more
sense
as
a
foundation
initiative
or
whether
we
want
to
have
both
the
security
working
group
I
think
is
a
good
example
of
this.
F
A
Okay,
I
think
I'll
just
mention
a
few
of
the
others.
Again
we
don't
have
to
get
into
the
details.
All
of
them
just
want
to
get
people
thinking
agree
on
a
timeline
for
liking.
The
CP
resident
is
obviously
tied
to
figuring
how
we're
gonna
do
it,
as
the
governance
is
currently
written.
The
node.js
project
also
had
continues
to
have
one
board
representative,
at
least
for
the
first
year.
It
was
written
as
it
would
be
somebody
selected
from
the
TSC
or
the
community
committee,
as
voted
on
by
the
members
of
the
the
nodejs
organization.
A
So
I
think
you
know
we
as
a
group,
along
with
the
kumkum,
just
need
to
say
yeah.
Okay,
that
that's
you
know.
Hopefully
we
would
have
heard
if
that
doesn't
make
sense,
but
yeah.
We
think
that
makes
sense,
and
how
do
we
put
that
into
practice
and
then
there's
sort
of
the
the
more
tactical
things
of
you
know,
updating
the
Charter
and
governance
I
think
those
will
mostly
be
around
board
representation.
A
F
I
mean
I'm,
not
thinking
that
there's
going
to
be
a
ton
that
will
change
and
I
think
like
a
lot
more
of
it
is
going
to
start
becoming
apparent
as
like.
The
CBC
itself
starts
ramping
up
and
as
like
projects
start
comparing
like.
So
you
know
like
I,
won't
get
into
all
right
now,
but
it's
like
we
use
a
DC
right
now
the
foundation
may
have
a
CLA.
F
Do
we
want
to
accept
that
CLA
as
well,
so
like
there
I,
think
that,
like
there
will
be
different
edge
cases
that
come
up,
but
my
opinion
is
that
most
of
them
will
come
up
fairly.
Naturally,
and
you
know
I-
think
a
lot
of
the
the
meta
process
in
the
foundation
is
going
to
be
informed
by
our
work.
So
I
don't
think
that
there's
gonna,
be
you
know
a
ton
of
changes
that
are
necessary
from
our
side.
Yeah.
A
The
other
things
on
the
list
are,
you
know,
update
to
the
code
of
conduct
references
because
the
and
not
again
me
maybe
take
some
time,
but
the
the
governance
for
the
foundation
says
that
we'll
share
one
which
is
very
close
to
what
we
already
have
anyway,
the
escalation
policy
escalation.
I
mentioned
the
travel
fund
administration
just
figuring
out
what
that
is.
You
know
it
sounds
like
miles.
It's
already
already
been
thought
a
bit
about,
and
for
this
year
at
least,
there's
no
changes
right.
So.
F
A
And
I
think
that's
be
good,
because
we
do
want
to
spend
some
time
with
the
update
from
rod
as
well,
which
is
the
next
issue.
The
next
thing
on
the
agenda.
Let
me
see
if
I
can
just
get
back
to
the
attendee
here.
I
somehow
lost
my
sight
there
right,
which
is
the
platform
and
compiler
proposal
for
12x
sera.
Do
you
want
to
give
us
an
update
on
that
and.
E
Anyway,
so
that
we
had
a
good
discussion
yesterday,
you
know
the
usual
panic
as
we
get
close
to
a
seven
major,
particularly
LTS,
that
we're
locking
ourselves
into
three
plus
years
supporting
particular
platform.
So
we
went
through
and
decided
to
come
up
with
some
proposals
for
minimum
so
that
the
constraints
that
we
are
juggling
here
are,
you
know
primarily
that's
building
resources,
mainly
people
resources.
E
E
E
So
the
ones
with
ones
we've
outlined
we,
we
have
there's
actually
a
site
I've
shown
yesterday
called
Linux
lifecycle
comm.
That
actually
has
everything
must
a
nice
page,
and
you
can
see
that
Enterprise
Linux
6,
which
is
CentOS
and
rel,
hits
AOL
in
that
in
November
20
20
year
and
the
bun
to
1404
is
AOL
next
month
and
1604
is
year
well
in
2021.
E
Debian
8
e
0l
next
year,
April
20
20,
so
it's
yeah,
so
it's
it's
very
close
to
Santos
and
rl6,
so
they're,
the
ones
we
care
about
mainly
so
that
puts
us
before
no
12
we're
suggesting
that
we
lift
the
minimum
up
to
Enterprise
Linux
7,
which
is
rel
7
and
CentOS
7
and
Debian
9
Debian
stretch,
and
there
are
sort
of
the
fundamentals.
There's
a
bun
to
is
a
little
bit
different,
but
I
think
saying
in
their
1604.
Is
that
what
will
stick
with
sticks?
You
know
for.
E
We
are
currently
we
are
not
making
suggesting
changes
to
Mac
OS
because
we're
not
what
we
haven't.
We
have
a
range
of
options,
but
we
need
feedback
on
that
because
we
don't
feel
like
we
have
the
expertise,
so
we
were
going
to
pull
in
suggest
that
maybe
Ali
and
others
on
the
VA
team
have
been
gnawed
house,
others
that
have
historical
expertise
on
Mac,
OS
versions
and
also
with
Mac
OS.
E
You
go
choose
not
only
the
version
you
can
pile
on
the
end,
the
Xcode
version,
but
also
the
which,
which
version
of
Mac
OS
you
are
being
compatible
with,
and
we've
still
got
that
as
I
think
we're
compiling
on
10
11
now,
but
we're
supporting
all
the
way
back
to
10
7,
and
we
think
maybe
it's
time
to
lift
that,
because
we
have
run
into
problems
with
Heather's.
Big
Mac
doesn't
be
the
greatest
job
with
back
2000
changes.
So
maybe
it's
time
to
lift
both
of
those.
But
we
need
feedback
on
that
windows.
E
We
are
waiting
for
feedback
from
we're
talking
to
Joelle
at
janay
systems
who
Microsoft
contracts
on
this
support.
We
rely
on
him
a
lot
for
that.
Raphael
has
had
some
suggestions
about
moving
more
aggressively
to
the
future,
with
with
Microsoft
with
Windows
stuff.
So
that's
an
ongoing
email
discussion
we're
having
and
then
we'll
come
up
with
some
proposals
for
soon
hopefully
smarter
way.
I
don't
think
Colin's
on
this
call
is
he
I
know.
B
E
So
that
would
be
good,
but
we'll
get
feedback
from
Colin,
slash
giant
on
that
and
FreeBSD.
We
are
we're
talking
about
dropping
that
back
to
experimental
I
think
it
was
tier
two,
but
we
just
don't
have
the
we
don't
have
a
champion
for
CBS
D
in
Germany,
more
so
we're
not
doing
releases
for
them,
but
we
using
our
test
infrastructure,
we're
talking
about
removing
that
from
new
12
and
and
by
the
way
this.
This
is
only
for
no
12
plus
we're
not
talking
about
changing
our
test
setup
for
node
11.
E
That's
that
would
stay
as
it
is
which
doesn't
make
changing
into
the
future.
The
one
of
the
big
changes
in
here
that
we
sort
of
landed
on
as
a
rough
proposal
was
to
drop
arm
v6
into
experimental.
Now
we've
got
a
lot
of
feedback
from
the
arm.
V6
community.
There
are
legitimate
use
cases
and
lots
of
people
are
relying
on,
particularly
for
raspberry
pi
0,
which
is
a
fairly
new
platform
that
people
are
building
stuff.
E
E
Doctor
node
and
build,
or
even
the
TSC
they
sort
of
have
their
end
of
the
world.
So
spending
of
a
project
that
cares
for
these
experimental
or
not
even
considered
build
types
and
arm
v6
would
be
one
of
them.
Linux
x86
could
be
another
one
because
there's
been
a
lot
of
calls
for
thirty-six
binary
since
we
dropped
them
in
no
ten
was
all
maybe
was
eight,
so
we
could
actually
spin
that
up
in
this
project
and
all
they
arm
Vic,
six
community
cares
about
binaries,
so
we
could
solve
our
problems
with
tests
taking
forever
arm.
E
Ratify
ones
are
dropping
official
support,
but
still
producing
binaries
in
an
unofficial
capacity
such
that
it's
at
arm's
length
and
it
doesn't,
they
don't
hold
up
releases.
We
don't
have
to
be
held
deeply
accountable
when
things
break
that
the
communities
around
these
platforms
take
some
responsibility
for
making
things
work,
making
sure
the
boundaries
come
out.
So
that's
proposal,
I'll,
put
up
and
there's
some
details
in
the
bill
of
repo
and
some
of
the
issues,
but
I'll
pull
it
off
more
clear
proposal
about
what
that
might
look
like
and
then
yeah.