►
Description
A
A
A
I
guess
if
nobody
else
has
any
maybe
I'll
mention
that
I
know
people
have
been
having
you
know.
We
I
think
the
Foundation's
been
receiving
questions
about
the
current
covered,
19
situation
in
the
open
Jas
world
conference,
and
there
was
a
blog
post
put
out
I
think
just
yesterday
or
today
that
provides
an
update.
You
know
that
then
the
sort
of
summary
is
still
on,
but
you
know
watching
the
situation
closely
and
it
includes
some.
You
know
information
about
cancellation
and
stuff
like
that.
A
A
A
B
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
the
election
for
the
voting
representative
for
the
open,
Jas
cross
project,
Council
TSE
rep
8:35,
I'm
going
to
open
it
up
just
to
make
sure
there
haven't
been
any
comments
since
I
last
looked
at
it
and
the
answer
seems
to
be
no,
so
we
had
matteo
volunteered
to
continue
as
our
CPC
rep
for
the
next
year,
which
is
great
there
weren't
any
other
volunteers.
So
I'm
proposing
that
you
know
we.
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
A
A
You
know
thanks
Mateus
for
jumping
in
there
with
some
of
some
other
good
topics.
You
know,
I'd
be
looking
for
maybe
early
next
week,
I
plan
to
do
another
pass
to
kind
of
pull
together.
The
suggestions
into
you
know
something
that
integrates
those
suggestions
into
an
overall
agenda.
So
if
people
have
thoughts
can
take
a
look,
it
would
be
great
to
chime
in
between
now
and
now.
In
the
end
of
the
week,.
A
D
E
A
A
Don't
have
that
I,
don't
have
anything
in
mind,
yet
it's
kind
of
like
figure
out
a
good
agenda.
If
we
can
then
figure
out
the
logistics,
then
we,
you
know
think
about
a
time.
I
I
be
like
I,
wouldn't
be
planning
it
for
the
next
few
weeks
or
anything
like
that.
I
think
we
want
a
time
where
people
will
be
non
distracted
and
and
be
able
to
to
focus
on
it,
but
other
than
that.
That's
the
only
thoughts
I
have
so
far.
A
A
C
I'm,
not
volunteering
or
anything,
but
it's
been
a
while,
since
we
had
Josh
around
to
take
really
great
minutes
so
that
the
person
cheering
didn't
have
to
do
all
the
work
for
the
meeting.
It
might
not
be
a
bad
idea
to
send
out
a
call
for
volunteer
today,
while
I'm
thinking
about
it.
Maybe
I
will
volunteer
by
then
okay,
you.
B
B
Perfect
a
couple
of
interesting
things:
one
is:
there
is
an
initiative,
so
the
Open
Science
Foundation
is
actually
seeking
for
new
content
to
post
on
their
blog
they're.
Looking
for
deep
technical
content
for
all
projects,
including
ideas.
So
that's
also
that's
interesting.
They're
also
looking
for
some
developer
profile
to
publish
there
on
the
blog
as
well
on
the
site
and
so
on
so
reach
out
to
reach
a
runoff.
If
you
are
interesting
or
to
me,
I
will
forward
it
to
them.
Essentially,
there
is
the
regarding
the
open,
J's,
word
and
summit.
B
B
Of
course,
the
nomination
for
the
non
impact
project
voting
representative
there
is
some
discussion
going
around
about
the
notarization
for
Makris
and
windows,
so
I
think
the
notepad.
The
note
people
that
are
relevant
to
this
are
already
part
of
the
discussion,
but
still
good
thing
to
true
the
call
we
talked
about
it
in
the
ESC
meeting
as
well,
and
if
there
are
people
interesting
that
are
looking
for
candidates
to
populate
the
Code
of
Conduct
panel
of
the
open
areas
foundation,
which
I
think
it
probably
is
probably
worthwhile
to
advertise.
I
can
pause
the
issue
here.
A
B
F
B
F
I'm
not
saying
that
we
should
overly
complicate
or
codify
this,
but
in
a
similar
structure
to
how
we
like
nominate
people
from
here
for
the
CPC.
Maybe
the
moderation
team
wants
to
like
have
members
of
the
moderation
team
kind
of
be
nominated
to
fill
that
role
so
that
there's
a
clear
line
of
communication
between
the
damn.
B
A
F
B
A
B
B
Okay
and
then
there
are
still
going
on
activity
about
graduations
and
so
on.
There
is
also
some
discussion
about
the
responsible
disclosures
security
related
work,
but
everybody
from
the
notes
project
has
been
chiming
in
anyway
and
and
about
about
the
things
one
of
the
important
stuff
and
miles
can
probably
talk.
A
lot
about
this
is
the
chart.
Is
the
chartering
of
the
standards
team
at
the
open,
J's
foundation?
B
F
So,
there's
a
couple
different
things
to
take
in
here,
so
we've
standardizing
of
chartering
a
standards
working
group,
the
working
groups,
if
you
go
to
the
cross
project,
council,
repo
and
I,
can
go
in
Grega
break
up
the
whole
request.
Friel
outlines
kind
of
what
we
view
to
be
like
the
scope
and
process
of
it
so
I'm
just
finding
it.
The
the
most
important
part.
F
F
We
have
kicked
off
the
process
of
requesting
membership
for
both
of
those
organizations
and
those
were
kind
of
initiated
by
the
standards
org.
So
if
there
is
standards,
work
that
you
want
to
do
and
for
whatever
reason,
maybe
we
are
not
members
of
those
organizations.
Yet
you
know
we
are.
We
are
in
a
position
to
help
get
those
memberships
taken
care
of
to
Stuart
the
process
of
getting
the
foundation
to
approve
that.
So
they
you
know,
you
can
kind
of
just
show
up
and
open.
F
F
B
Thank
You
miles
I
just
wanted
to
talk
about
to.
Let
you
talk
about
this
because
you
probably
had
way
more
context
at
me
and
did
a
fantastic
job
even
doing
the
know.
Setting
these
up
cool
I
just
wanted
to
I
think
that's
all
for
my
for
the
CPC
update.
There
was
a
lot
of
things
that
we
all
just
add
two.
A
A
You
know
areas
of
collaboration,
so,
for
example,
standards
is
one
where,
maybe
that's
you
know,
I
guess
I
was
the
saying
that
were
me,
the
work
on
the
standards
itself
might
occur,
but
there's
also
been
discussion
of
you
know
having
a
group
come
together
around
security
and
another
of
other
topics,
and
it's
a
you
know,
proposal
to
formalize
that,
in
terms
of
you
know
how
do
you,
how
do
you
apply
to
propose
to
create
one
of
those?
What
kind
of
resources
you
get
and
so
forth?
A
The
other
thing
too
worth
mentioning
is
the
on
the
board
front.
There
hasn't
been
a
meeting
since
our
last
our
last
meeting.
However,
the
that
they
have
documented
guidance
on
member
companies
provided
a
traditional
directed
funding,
so
I've
added
the
link
again
in
the
minutes.
If
you
have
any
interest
in
that,
in
terms
of
you
know,
member
companies,
if
they
want
to
give
say
more
money
to
node
with
the
the
process
and
kind
of
limits
are
on
that
it
is,
it
is
meant
to
stand
increment.
F
Continue
to
move
forward,
one
of
the
biggest
things
that
we're
kind
of
currently
debating
is
when
to
remove
the
warning,
so
I
wouldn't
say
that
it
is
contentious
per
se.
But
you
know
I
kind
of
owe
people
a
bit
of
more
of
an
explanation.
Around
kind
of
my
thought
process
right
now,
I
don't
feel
like
it's
quite
ready
to
remove
the
warning
and
I've
kind
of
I
offered
the
team
that
I
would
create
a
timeline
of
like
I.
F
Warning
yeah,
so
when
you
so
right
now
in
13,
for
example,
there
is
no
more
flag,
but
when
you
use
the
ESM
loader
at
all,
whether
through
dynamic
import
or
through
loading,
an
ESN
file
with
MJS
or
using
type
module
and
in
a
GFI
--all,
if
you
do
that,
then
you
do
get
a
warning
about
the
module
loader
being
experimental.
We
removed
all
the
other
warnings,
so
there
had
been
warnings
specifically
about
conditional
exports
and
another
one
around
several
self-referential
imports.
F
Those
warnings
have
been
removed,
as
we
have
like
you
know,
some
pretty
we're
not
expecting.
Those
features
to
really
change
at
all,
but
removing
the
warning
for
the
ESM
feature
overall
I
think
does
require
at
least
to
myself
a
bit
a
bit
more
polish
on
documentation
of
developer
experience,
usability
and
there's
a
handful
of
open
issues.
So
some
folks
do
feel
like
we
are
in
a
position
right
now
where
it
would
be
okay
to
remove
the
warning.
F
Others
such
as
myself,
don't
feel
like
we
are
they're,
said
anyways
I'm
extremely
excited
that
this
is
the
level
of
discussion
and
discourse
that
we're
at
right.
Now.
It
means
we're
really
close
if
folks
from
the
TSE
have
opinions
about
like
what
the
criteria
should
be
for
removing
the
warning
and
to
be
clear.
E
F
F
B
F
I
think
that
I
think
that
the
challenge
here
Matteo,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
in
the
way
I,
would
like
us
to
approach.
It
would
be
that
I
do
think.
We
are
nearing
a
place
where
we're
really
is
production-ready.
In
fact,
I
would
even
argue
that
the
loader
itself,
the
underlying
mechanisms,
are
all
production-ready
and
kind
of
where
we're
at
right
now
is
making
warnings
better.
Like
that's,
actually
been
one
of
the
biggest
feedbacks
that
we've
received.
F
F
F
If
we
find
that
some
of
the
decisions
that
we've
made
are
not
compatible
with
the
ecosystem
that
we
won't
know
until
there's,
larger
adoption,
and
so
I
am
concerned
that
if
we
call
it
stable,
we
could
end
up
baking
something
prematurely,
but
it
won't
actually
get
that
level
of
adoption
until
we
remove
the
warning.
So
we
have
a
bit
of
a
catch-22
here:
okay,.
F
B
No,
there
is
no
no
rule
or
anything.
So
from
my
point
of
view,
it's
literally
as
much
as
me.
So
from
my
point
of
view,
it
is
now
this
is
a
fundamental
API
as
a
fundamental
capability
of
the
prosper
and
removing
the
warning
will
means
that
our
two
people
will
start
using
it
immediately
yeah,
and
if
we're
going
to
change
it,
then
we
are
sending
them
a
false
message
to
some
extent.
F
B
F
B
A
F
So
so
that's
mostly
where
I'm
trying
to
like
kind
of
leave
some
room
but
and
I
think
I
think
that
this
is
exactly
kind
of
where
the
contention
is
in
the
team.
Right
now
and
again,
it's
not
major
contention,
but
it's
just
kind
of
like
how
stable
is
stable
to
remove
the
warning,
because,
essentially,
as
you
put
it,
removing
the
warning
is
blessing.
This
in
production
and
I
think
that
what
would
be
really
helpful
Matteo
would
be
those
issues
that
you
have
I
have
a
couple
that
I
care
about
and
have
other
folks
on.
F
F
So
the
commitment
that
I
made
to
the
team,
at
least
it
was
like,
because
I
was
one
of
the
only
ones
who
is
really
pushing
on
this-
was
that
I
would
identify
the
particular
examples
that
I
would
like
to
see
solved
and
that
if
I
couldn't
find
time
in
lieu
of
like
doing
this,
you
know
I
would
not
block
removing
the
warning,
but
for
what
it's
worth.
As
far
as
the
team
is
concerned,
there
are
no
major
and
large
changes
planned.
F
A
A
A
B
Its
I
think
things
are
still
are
still
moving
to
discussing.
You
have
landed
a
few
things
recently
related
to
us,
Inc
iterators
amongst
different
areas,
so
that
I
think
that's
progressing.
I
am
I,
think
that
should
be
kept
kept
there
to
some
extent.
If
there
are
certain
things
that
we
need,
we
need
to
do
something
about
like
HTTP
and
other
bits,
still
not
really
clear
what
so
you.
A
B
For
the
sort
of
next
10
years-
yes,
essentially,
yes,
so
it's
you
know
it's
like
HTTP
1.
It's
really
like
it's
it's
a
complicated
topic.
So
all
of
those
are
complicated
topics.
So
yes,
yes
miles!
Yes,
but
it's
all!
This
is
a
complicated.
Is
all
of
these
are
complicated
topics.
Ok,
so
a
lot
of
thinking
force
on
the
server
and
the
client.
It
is
complicated,
stuff,
so
I'm
not
necessarily
happy
with
what
we
have.
There
is
a
lot
of
prawns
and
discussion
where
we
are
going
so
it's
yeah.
That's
it!
Ok,.
A
Yeah,
so
maybe,
if
we
have
that
session,
we
could
come
out
with
you
know
a
bit
of
a
roadmap
or
the
areas
to
focus
on
or
whatever,
ok
yeah
the
next
one
in
the
list
is
new
streaming.
Api
is
but
I've
actually
in
that
same
PR
are
looking
to
move
that
to
being
like
champion
needed,
because
you
know
Jeremiah
has
dropped
out
of
the
the
tea
scene.
Unless
we
have
somebody
else
who's
going
to
pick
that
one
up
I
think
that's
the
state
we're
in
that
makes
sense
to
everybody.
A
A
To
talk
about
it
right,
we
could
easily,
though,
and
I
think
we
may
have
even
done
this,
where
we
could
have
somebody
who's
like
the
whatever
we'd
want
to
call
them
the
the
person
who's
the
actual
champion
for
the
initiative,
and
then
they
you
know,
given
that
that
person's
in
place,
we
could
have
somebody
who's,
just
their
liaison.
With
that
on
the
TSC
is
the
TSE
champion.
F
F
B
C
H
Yes,
so
Matthias
has
been
working
on
the
update
to
v8,
8.1
and
I.
Think
he's
going
to
push
it
to
master
today,
if
I
understood
correctly,
yes
good,
so
it
should
be
ready
for
node,
14
and
I
saw
I
did
I,
don't
know
exactly
when
it
happened,
but
v8
branched
version
8.2
already,
so
we
could
actually
work
on
integrating
it.
Maybe
we
will
have
time
if
you.
B
H
Well,
for
thirteen
I,
don't
know
if
we'll
be
able
to
to
do
anything
because
8.1
is
quite
breaking
and
we
because
we
got
delayed
a
bit
we'd,
never
updated
to
8.0
I
mean
we
never
updated
master
node
master
to
8.0,
so
I,
don't
know
if
that's
feasible
for
thirteen
and
given
that
thirteen
will
soon
be
in
maintenance
mode.
I,
don't
know
if
it's
worth
the
work
that.
H
H
F
It
might
make
sense
that
if
we
don't
think
that
we
can
get
a
newer
version
of
v8
into
twelve,
though
that
maybe
we
can
get
some
benchmarks
together
and
either
a
I
know
like
Matthias,
had
a
handful
of
requests.
Maybe
you
can
speak
to
that
for
backports
to
try
to
fix
some
regressions
that
were
found
in
12,
but
I'll
turn,
though
maybe
we
could
also
try
to
get
the
v8
team
involved
and
just
get
a
handful
of
back
parts
in
there.
If
we
can
get
like
a
a
regression
test
and.
B
B
But
the
problem
here
is
it's
one,
so
from
so
I
have
tested
this
on
node
v8
on
the
latest
one.
Let
me
check
again
on
note
the
age,
so
I
can
confirm
exactly
and
I
report
or
not
v8,
because
I
don't
remember
if
I
tested
these
or
the
another
one.
So
I
just
want
to
be
any
percent
short
of
what
I'm
saying,
but
it's
and
pretty
convinced
that
I
tested
it,
but
some
time
ago,
like
a
week
ago
or
something
so
I,
don't
know
if
if
it
was
already
landed
or
not
no
v8.
B
H
A
Okay,
at
this
point,
we
only
have
ten
minutes
left
and
we
did
want
to
have
a
little
bit
of
time
for
private
sections.
So
I
would
suggest
that
we
skip
the
rest
of
the
strategic
initiatives
for
this
week
unless
there's
one
in
particular
that
somebody
wanted
to
bring
up
some
topics
or
points
that
we
needed
to
discuss.