►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/135
Rod Vagg - https://github.com/rvagg (TSC)
Alexis Campailla - https://github.com/orangemocha (TSC)
Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
Michael Dawson - https://github.com/mhdawson (TSC)
James Snell - https://github.com/jasnell (TSC)
Bryan Hughes - https://github.com/nebrius (TSC)
Josh Gavant - https://github.com/joshgav (Observer/Microsoft)
William Kapke - https://github.com/williamkapke (Observer)
Fedor Indutny - https://github.com/indutny (TSC)
Jenn Turner - https://github.com/renrutnnej (Observer/Node Foundation)
A
B
C
Hi,
it's
Tracy
I
just
wanted
to
mention
that
I'll
be
drawing
up
the
proposal
for
the
case.
It
would
be
the
investigation
for
certain
things
regarding
inclusivity
working
group
transitioning
over
to
the
foundation.
If
anybody
here
would
like
to
participate
in
that
or
be
a
set
of
eyes
on
that
proposal,
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me.
I've
had
a
couple
board
members
who
offered
as
well,
but
I
need
more
perspective.
So
I
really
appreciate
that
and
I
should
have
a
more
codified
version
of
that
proposal
in
the
next
week.
A
A
A
We
talked
about
TSE
elections
and
the
decision
was
to
come
back
for
elections.
This
week,
I
stood
in
on
like
a
source
of
the
final
of
my
last
term,
of
from
st
SE
chair
on
the
board
meeting
last
week
this
week.
We
need
to
try
and
thought
up
a
new
term
to
find
no
core.
We
had
made
me
progress
and
we
haven't
made
any
more
progress
this
week,
regular
roll
up,
reporting
again
the
progress
and
approves
this
week,
and
then
we
talked
a
bit
about
nvm.
A
We
had
Jordan
hub
and
join
us
on
the
in
the
meeting
to
talk
about
the
possibility
of
nvm
nvm
move
again.
It
was
mainly
questions
of
process
and
we
didn't
have
great
answers
on
process
because
we
felt
we
needed
to
sort
out
a
lot
of
the
previous
stuff
and
I'm.
Sorry,
love
the
you
know,
defining
no
core
and
defining
our
scope,
but
we
did
feel
that
we
probably
should
inform
the
board
which
it
didn't
put
in
the
board
deck
actually
for
the
last
board
meeting.
A
E
F
E
E
A
E
A
A
A
A
E
A
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean
I
would
prefer
a
signal
from
tsc
members
that
they
have
enough
confidence
in
me
to
continue.
I
know
that
during
the
last
year,
I've
put
a
good
place
to
cover
people
off
side
of
it,
and-
and
so
you
know
it
wouldn't
mind
getting
that
term-
the
you
know
reinforcement
of
that
or
otherwise.
A
D
A
A
E
Right
yeah
I
mean
like
if
somebody
I
mean
people
do
up
Stan
quite
a
bit.
I
mean,
especially
whenever
we
pass
the
minutes,
there's
usually
people
that
weren't
in
the
meeting.
So
they
abstained.
So
we
just
make
sure
that
we
mark
down
whoever
is
abstaining
when
they
say
that
they're
upstanding,
but
so
many
people
are
going.
I,
when
the
y
8
photos
in
that
you
just
walk
down
unanimous
unless
somebody
says
that
they
vote
against
it.
A
F
A
A
Fun
look:
we
will
get
back
to
this,
get
reload
back
into
this
over
over
the
next
couple.
Meetings,
I
think
and
try
and
get
this
one
wrapped
up
of
it,
because
I
think
we're
close
to
the
cluster
resolution,
but
rowlett
reporting
as
well.
It's
not
one
of
those
things
that
we
will
try
and
get
resolved
over
the
next
month
and
get
that
in
action,
because
they'll
be
really
good
to
start.
Seeing
but
again,
I
have
nothing
to
report
on
there
and
that
was
in
my
hands
nvm.
A
A
A
G
Yeah
so
I
think
it
was
the
last
minute
meeting
before
we
talked
about
contributing
documents
to
all
the
things
that
are
pulled
into
the
org
and
then
having
that
approved
by
the
TSE
and
right.
At
that
same
time,
Philip
had
pulled
in
the
gavotte
without
those,
so
I
went
after
the
fact
and
added
those
documents
in
and
from
that
PR
there.
Some
questions
popped
up
there
so
like
the
github
bot,
it
doesn't
have
a
working
group
or
anything
like
that.
E
Request
came
from
the
tsc
actually,
so
we
should
start
a
thread
about
you
know:
switching
up
the
license
for
stuff
that
we
yourself
and
then
I,
don't
think
I
think
they're,
worse
is
debated.
Yeah
I
mean
it'll,
be
good
for
the
for
the
community.
To
kind
of
have
this
discussion
about,
you
know,
pass
protection
good
stuff
as
well,
because
there's
we
haven't
done
enough
to
really
educate
people
on
it.
So
this
is
a
good
opportunity.
E
E
E
A
Got
yelled
okay,
I
got
back
to
the
email
thread
that
you
went
ahead.
Ma'am
oops
I
can
find
you
got
it
so
I'm
just
making
that
about
MIT
to
the
thing
about
the
Apache
to
license,
which
thing
is
that
that
essentially
came
from
the
legal
committee
and
but
then
it
didn't
go
anywhere
from
there.
It
doesn't
just
being
a
vague
recommendation.
No.
E
Things
are
still
happening
in
order
to
get
in
order
to
change
licenses.
It's
going
to
be
like
a
lot
of
work,
a
lot
of
like
legwork
and
get
a
couplet
sign
stuff,
and-
and
we
also
need
to
get
to
it-
that's
something
so
there's
there's
there's
some
work
happening
kind
of
in
the
background
to
make
that
happen.
But
the
question
about
you
know
what
a
new
projects
or
projects
coming
in
that
we
could
easily
relicense,
because
then
we
have
like
one
contributor
in
you
stickin
sent
for
for
that
kind
of
stuff.
A
Can
we
consider
the
what
the
Lego
committee
said
as
advice
on
the
appropriateness
of
patchy
to
like
do
we
do
we
consider
what
they
said
and
to
be
a
recommendation,
or
are
we
over
indexing
on
something?
That's
what
I'm
worried
about
like
if
we
go
back
inside
of
the
board,
you
know
we
want
that.
We
want
to
consider
switching
the
default
to
the
Pesci
too,
and
what's
that
based
on
well.
E
I
mean
that
that
is
based
on
I
mean.
Currently
we
are
actually
time
to
figure
out
the
viability
of
switching
the
main
project
over
to
something
with
more
patent
protection,
namely
apache2,
but
that
X
is
like
you
know
that
already
is
happening.
That
is
a
recommendation.
Essentially
some
legal
committee.
It.
E
A
F
A
E
B
A
A
E
G
A
A
A
A
G
A
A
A
Not
leaning
too
heavily
on
the
whole
working
group
concept
and
and
leaning
in
a
bit
more
to
just
letting
private
projects
govern
themselves
and
allow
people
to
gather
around
them
and
and
and
you
to
github
teams,
essentially
as
a
governance
mechanism,
so
my
I
think
my
preference
would
be
for
it
probably
to
just
come
under
the
tsc
with
a
github
team.
As
a
management
group,
there
was
discussion
in
that
thread.
I
know
about
putting
it
under
the
build
working
group
because
some
of
its
scope
was
there
and
the
end.
A
G
I
think,
ultimately,
the
scope
of
that
is
going
to
be
a
Jeremiah
I
think
use
the
example
of
the
website
and
all
the
build
team
is
responsible
for
getting
it
out
there.
But
the
website
working
group
is
like
dedicated
to
the
focus
of
that
project.
You
know,
and
I
think
the
bots
going
to
grow
into
that
eventually
yeah.
A
I
think
that's
right
and-
and
the
other
thing
about
the
bots
working
group
is
that
it's
it's
going
to
operate
in
these
different
areas
like
it'll
go
into
the
CDC's
area,
but
ultimately
the
CGC
is
going
to
be
able
to
have
a
say
as
to
what
the
blood
does
in
that
area.
So
you
know
touching
issues
doing
anything
with
stuff
in
that
repo.
That's
the
CQC's
call!
It's
not
going
to
be
this
working
this
new
working
group.
A
Will
this
new
teams
call
as
to
what
it's
allowed
to
do
in
that
area,
so
those
questions,
I
think
are
fairly
discreet
and
they
don't
need
to
be
answered
within
this
this
bot
group,
but
then
it
can
go
elsewhere
as
well
and
have
different
permissions
elsewhere,
like
maybe
the
website
working
group
of
being
a
lot
more
liberal.
If,
if
it
goes
to
interact
there
and.
G
That's
something
I
brought
up
on
the
call
yesterday
I
and
it
seemed
like
everybody
was
very
favorable
towards
it
is
that
you
know
groups
are
autonomous
and
there
shouldn't
be
a
if
this
thing
is
going
to
be
effective
and
you
know
really
valued
I
think
there
shouldn't
be
a
like
a
group
that
has
editorial
say
and
what
it
does.
You
know
people
these
groups
should
be
able
to
publish
scripts
and
put
it
to
what
it
does.
A
A
D
A
G
I,
don't
think
anyone
was
really
moving
towards
a
working
group.
It
was
like
I
say
just
you
know
who
to
write
down
in
the
governance,
talk
where
if
something
has
to
bubble
up,
you
know
somebody
answers
but
likely
ninety-nine
point
nine
percent
of
the
time.
It
will
just
be
the
team
that
responds
to
it
and
take
care
of
it.
F
By
way
of
example,
stick
Jim,
it
emerged
within
the
project.
We
don't
have
a
working
group,
I
don't
need.
We
have
a
formal
team,
it's
primarily
miles
that
drives
that,
but
it's
worked
really
well.
We
haven't
had
any
issues
and
I
think
a
lot
of
us
because
we
haven't
tried
to
put
any
kind
of
formal
process
around
it.
E
D
And
I
think
there's
value
in
just
sort
of
watching
it
play
out.
You
know
once
an
issue
does
come
up.
You
know
we'll
have
much
like
a
much
more
concrete
case
to
work
on
and
we
can
figure
out
then
where
the
the
best
place
is
to
move
it
to,
and
we
kind
of
use
as
the
case
that
you
figure
out,
you
know
what
is
the
best
role
and
see
how
well
it
works.
You
know,
I,
don't
think
it's
something
we
have
to
answer
right
now
or
answer
ahead
of
time.
Yeah.
A
A
G
B
B
A
Part
of
the
responsibility,
though,
of
a
meeting
chair,
is
to
make
sure
that
the
agenda
is
sorted
ahead
of
time,
so
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that
agendas
are
sorted
out
and
published
with
enough
warning
for
people
attending
so
adding
stuff
at
the
last
minute
is
generally
not
good
practice,
but
right
you
will
try
to
figure
it
out.
Hopefully,.
B
So
this
is
a
lot
of
some
stuff
that
I
think
William
would
like
to
do
with
making
inviting
people
to
the
github
org
more
liberal
and
easy
so
that
it
it
can
be
delegated
team
maintained,
errs
and
not
just
admins.
To
do
that.
A
blunt
that
could
do
that
would
need
to
have
admin
rights
to
the
github
work,
as
some
of
us
on
the
Black
team.
B
Don't
feel
the
best
about
that
so
we'd
like
to
bump
it
the
tsc
and
specifically
asked
if,
if
the
TC
feels
it
would
be,
okay
to
at
least
at
least
investigate
using
a
guitar
bought
for
that
sort
of
thing,
but
have
it
separated
from
the
main
baat
with
like
a
little
bit
of
elevated
access
amount
so
that
not
anyone
can
edit.
It.
B
B
E
G
G
I
have
a
working
script
in
the
video
that
people
can
watch
to
see
what
I
had
in
mind
for
for
accomplishing
this,
but
I
wanted
to
call
more
clear
that
this
to
other
people,
not
so
involved
with
this
like
having
that
permissions
means
you
could
delete
the
github
nodejs
org.
So
that's
why
it
doesnt
sit
well
for
people
that
are
a
bot
or
something
to
have
access
to
that
yeah.
F
F
A
Is
actually
a
novel
scope
here
for
this,
which
is
admin
org,
which
enables
an
application
to
fully
manage
organizations,
teams
and
memberships?
So
there's
a
special
code
scope
in
the
API
for
this
I.
Just
don't
don't
know
how
far
beyond
that
that
goes
or
if
that
is
strictly
limited
to
managing
teams
and
memberships,
it
does
say
fully
managed
organizations.
E
E
We
want
to
protect
that
but
like
if
we're
running
in
our
own
infrastructure
or
something
that
has
admin,
org
access,
I
feel
like
that's
different,
and
we
can
probably
tolerate
that
being
that
that
same
infrastructure
and
that
same
build
group
like
manages
that
release
keys
and
all
kinds
of
like
you
know
if
it
were
to
be
compromised,
would
really
set
up
protects
security.
This
would
just
be
another
thing
that
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we
could
be
managed
properly.
B
A
Okay,
I
guess
ya,
know
I'm.
I
think,
I'm
the
same
that
if
we
treat
this
like
we
do
with
the
pacific
release
machines
like
in
keep
it
as
much
more
protected
than
other
resources,
then
fine,
so
that
would
mean
not
even
handing
over
an
OAuth
key
to
the
this
new
bot
team,
but
simply
saying
it's
available
on
your
deployment
environment,
which
is
managed
by
build
and
under
the
same
sort
of
restrictions
as
the
release
machines.
Then
that
makes
sense
right.
B
F
G
A
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
G
E
A
F
A
F
F
G
B
F
F
C
F
C
C
F
A
We
like
this
is
this
discussion
does
ban
into
exactly
the
kind
of
stuff
we're
talking
about
with
how
we
raise
up
and
recognize
people
for
these
management
roles,
so
even
in
the
CTC,
how
do
we?
How
do
we
bring
people
on
to
that
legitimately?
That
don't
necessarily
have
a
a
whole
slew
of
commitments
and
TSE
even
more
so?
How
do
we
recognize
people
who
are
contributing,
but
don't
have
commits
in
these?
A
A
F
So
our
plan
was,
to
you
know,
continue
talking
about
its
racing,
are
going
to
be
planning
on
getting
together
next
week.
It
interactive
to
talk
about
it.
So
anyone
else
is
there.
If
you
have
some
ideas,
yes,
we
can,
you
know
I'm
also
done
just
kind
of
brainstorm
on
it,
but
that
idea
is
having
a
concrete
proposal
within
the
next
couple
weeks.
E
G
Okay,
that
sounds
really
cool.
The
I
see
the
activity
that
happens
in
these
working
groups,
these
internationalization
working
groups
and
I've
always
just
astonished
that
there's
so
much
activity
there
that
even
nobody
ever
really
notices
on
the
I
don't
know
I'm
on
the
foundation,
sighs,
maybe
or
the
just
the
technical
side.
G
F
A
Ok,
moving
on
public
name,
so
if
there's
anyone
who's
listening
to
the
live
stream
as
a
question,
please
drop
it
into
the
YouTube
comments
there
or
the
tsc
repo
issue
for
this
meeting,
I'm
or
even
on
IRC.
If
you
can
find
what
I
was
there
we'll
give
it
a
a
couple
of
minutes
to
for
the
stream
to
catch
up
to
this.