►
From YouTube: 2021-12-2-Node.js Technical Steering Committee meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
A
Okay,
if
there's
no
announcements
next
up
is
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates.
I
don't
have
a
board
meeting
update
other
than
there
is
a
board
meeting
tomorrow.
So
if
there's
something
on
your
mind
and
you
think
I
should
be
bringing
it
up
there,
let
me
know
on
the
cpc
side
rich
any
update
on
that.
B
No
meeting
this
week-
and
I
don't-
I
don't-
have
any
updates
there.
A
A
A
I
see
antoine
has
a
comment
on
it,
so
I
don't
know
if
you
wanna
and
yeah
antoine.
You
also
added
the
tc
label,
so
you
want
to
bring
people
up
to
speed
on
that
and
ask
what
the
what
the
ask
is.
C
Oh
yeah
yeah,
so
that's
robert
wants
to
duplicate
something
without
going
through
a
runtime
duplication.
First,
all
right.
B
C
C
To
level
up
so
the
library
is
there
for
us
to,
I
guess
says:
oh
it's,
okay
or
no.
We.
We
should
not
do
that.
B
Yeah
there's
a
general
support
for
it.
I
think
even
james,
who
is
probably
the
sticklerest
of
us
all
on
the
deprecation
front,
seemed
to
be
okay,
with
going
right
to
runtime
on
it.
A
A
C
B
B
D
There
is
one
request,
changes
antoine.
It
was
that
just
to
so,
we
would
discuss
it
and
vote
on
it.
Yeah.
C
Yeah
exactly
and
the
documentation,
only
deprecation
hasn't
blended.
Well,
I
mean
now
it
has,
but.
A
A
A
The
next
one
is
docs
clarification
around
real
world
risks
and
use
cases
of
vm
module.
This
is
four
zero.
Seven
one
eight.
B
A
I
I
yeah,
I
think
I
think
it'll
come
down
to
you
know
we
we
are,
we
we've.
We've
said
that
the
vm
is
in
the
sandbox
and,
and
the
ask
here
seems
to
be
like
well,
can
you
say
that
it's
actually
a
security
mechanism
in
some
cases
or
when
it
might
be
safe?
And
I
don't
know
that
sounds
like
a
slippery
slope
to
me.
D
Yeah,
it
is
yeah,
it
generally
comes
down
to
it
every
time
we
think
that
it
might
have
a
case
for
it
there's
some
demonstration
that
it's
just
not
yeah,
so
I
I
don't
think
we
should
relax
that
at
all
now,
mid-icy
mateo
here
is
suggesting
that
we
get
something
else
in
here.
You
know
isolated,
vm
or
some
other
mechanism
for
actually
having
a
proper
isolation.
D
A
Okay,
the
next
one
is
rename
default
branch
for
master
domain
number
33864..
A
I
don't
think
I've
seen
any
comments
on
that
to
say:
we've
made
progress.
I
know
there's
a
few
key
yeah,
so
I
did
notice
that
actually
targos
has
done
some
work
on
node
core
utils
and
we
were
asked
to
update.
So
that's
good,
but
I
don't
see
any
updates
since
then.
In
terms
of
you
know,
I
know
richard
is
looking
at
a
couple
of
modules
and
a
couple
of
projects
and
so
forth,
but
I
don't
think
there's
any
updates
this
week.
A
B
This,
I
think
our
reuben
was
supposed
to
review
the
options
and
the
voting
for
this
yeah.
E
So
I
did
that.
I
do
not
know.
I
didn't
check
what
was
spoken
about
last
week,
but
as
far
as
I
see
it
and
the
new
options
are
not
really
yet
sufficient
and
because,
if
we
would
do
that
and
like
it
was
suggested
to
separate
the
voting
options
into
two
parts,
one
part
would
be
goals
and
one
part
would
be.
What
was
it.
E
Possible
approaches
right,
but
if
we
do
that,
like
maybe
one
approach
does
not
actually
fit
the
goal
and
out
of
my
perspective,
there
are
also
at
least
some
possibilities
not
yet
they're
listed.
So
I
wrote
down
an
alternative
that
had
multiple
options
there.
I
don't
know
like
anyone
here
and
around
could
obviously
also
suggest
more
alternatives.
E
But
at
the
moment
it's
a
little
bit
difficult
to
really
get
to
a
point
where
we
can
start
with
the
process
to
vote
for
it.
B
E
E
Suggestion
and
then
I
could
imagine
as
one
like
I
don't
say
it's
perfect.
I
believe
it's
difficult
to
find
an
ideal
list
of
possibilities,
but
as
long
as
we
as
the
tsc
all
agree
upon
that,
we
have
sufficient
options
in
there.
E
That
would
be
fine
out
of
my
perspective,
and
we
could
obviously
also
have
like
multiple
rounds
of
voting
and
like
either
to
first
throw
some
options
out
and
that
are
only
less
voted
upon
and
then
during
the
second
round,
or
we
have
like
what
was
just
suggested
last
week,
was
with
the
multiple
different
things
about
the
golds
and
the.
B
Has
been
this
is
this
has
been
going
on
for
quite
a
while,
but
I
think
that's
the
reality.
If
someone
else
feels
differently,
please
please
say
something,
but
I
don't
think
we're
getting
any
we're
gonna
get
very
far
here
and
now
today.
E
Like
not
a
lot
of
people
have
actually
from
from
the
tsc
they
commented
on
it
in
general.
So
maybe
if
we
have
like
more
tlc
interaction
in
that
issue,
it
might
be
good.
B
Join
I'll
go
in
right
now
and
I'll
leave
a
comment:
tagging
tsc!
That's
you
know
not
that
that
that
may
not
generate
anything,
but
it's
you
know
at
least
a
an
immediate
step.
We
can
take
to
try
to
get
more
engagement
in
there.
I
know
I
have
not
been.
I
I've.
I've
been
awaiting
the
three
or
four
options
to
vote
on,
it's
what
I've
been
doing,
but
if
we
all
have
to
get
involved
sooner
than
that,
then
so
be
it.
A
E
Like
I
have
the
feeling
we
will
not
be
able
to
reduce
it
to
only
like
three
or
four
options.
A
A
B
Great,
I
was
in
the
middle
typing
a
comment.
Okay,
let's
see
here,
which
one
is
this?
I'm
sorry
repeat,
I
wasn't.
A
It
is
number
1100
and
it's
related
to
security
triage.
What's
the
I
don't
mind,
I'm
pulling
it
off
here.
I
got
the
link
few.
B
Okay
right
so
okay,
yeah
yeah,
so
so
this
is
really.
This
is
morphed
into
basically
trying
to
trying
to
fix
our
security
triage
woes
that
have
fallen
particularly
heavily
on
mateo,
and
I
think,
we've
I
think
we're
we've
got
something
something
that
so
far
is
working
reasonably
well,
I
wish
matteo
were
here
to
be
able
to
say.
B
Well,
actually
it's
been
it's
too
soon
for
him
to
say
anyway,
but
you
know
another
week
or
two
it'll
be
interesting
to
hear
whether
or
not
he
feels
like
you
know
how
things
are
basically
how
things
are
going,
but
michael
dawson
and
I
and
matteo
and
vladimir
and
danielle
have
all
all
met
and
sort
of
worked
out.
You
know
went
through
the
triage,
the
vulnerability,
triage
process
and
sort
of
refined
it.
B
So
we
all
you
know
we
all
understood
it
as
best
we
could
in
the
time
we
had
and
we
agreed
on
a
schedule.
I
am
on
on
triage
duty
right
now.
I
started
on
monday.
It's
a
two-week
rotation,
so
I'll
be
doing
it
through
next
monday
when
someone
else
takes
over
and
in
the
middle
of
this
month.
I
think
on
december
15th,
but
I
keep
forgetting
to
send
out
the
invitation,
but
we
all
took
a
doodle
poll.
B
I
think
on
december
15th
we're
going
to
have
another
meeting
where
we
basically
sort
of
let
matteo
or
maybe
vladimir
screen
share
and
just
have
them
walk
through
a
bunch
of
stuff
and
ask
a
lot
of
questions
just
to
make
sure
we're
all
using
hacker
one
the
same
way
but
so
far.
I
think
it
seems
to
be
going
really
well,
and
the
remaining
piece
for
this
issue
is
that
we
kind
of
need
to
like
do
something
to
we
sort
of
have
the
same
issue
in
moderation.
B
To
be
honest,
but
you
know
like
okay,
so
now
we
have
a
now.
We
have
a
reasonable
amount
of
people
doing
triage
great.
We
kind
of
need
to
be
able
to
recruit
new
people.
B
Let
people
rotate
off
things
like
that,
and
and
and
in
most
cases
it
probably
makes
sense
for
the
people
to
be
doing
this
to
be
tsc
members,
because
much
like
with
releases,
you
really
get
given
the
keys
to
the
kingdom
in
some
regard,
not
keys
of
the
kingdom,
but
you
can
give
you
very
privileged
information,
and
so
vladimir
is
not
a
member
of
the
tsc.
B
But
he's
been
doing
this
a
long
time
and
you
know
he's
he's
known
and
trusted
by
many
of
us,
and
maybe
there
are
other
people
like
that,
but
I
don't
know
that
that
also
you
know
approaching
it
that
way,
also
there's
a
certain
way
in
which
that
doesn't
pass
the
smell
test.
So
to
speak.
So
I
don't
know
what
we're
going
to
do
there,
but
that's
where
things
are
at
that's
my
rambly
update.
Also,
we
also
are
looking
at
recruiting
and
michael.
B
Maybe
you
want
to
see
more
about
this
or
maybe
not
but
recruiting
more
security
stewards,
people
who
basically
help
out
with
the
releases
to
make
sure
all
the
t's
are
crossed
and
the
eyes
are
dotted.
So
I
think
matteo
has
been
doing
it
before
that
dan
vivinius
did
a
lot
of
it.
There's
a.
I
think.
You
have
like
three
companies
and
six
people
lined
up
and
yeah.
A
I
can
give
an
update,
there's
been
a
few
people,
who've
done
it
over
the
years
myself,
sam
dan
mateo
did
the
the
last
one,
and
I
yeah
I
was
I
was
hoping
to
get
to
four
companies.
I
think
that's
a
good
rotation
and
I
was
hoping
for
companies
versus
individuals
so
that
it's
not
it's
like
a
company
is
committing
their
time
versus
people
making
time
in
their
schedule
versus
their
their
company,
maybe
pulling
in
the
different
directions.
A
I
had
approached
the
number
of
different
companies
who
were
involved
in
the
the
projects.
So
far
we
have
three,
which
is
you
know,
red
hat
ibm
is
one
near
form,
is
the
second
and
data
dog
it
sounds
like
is
willing
as
well,
and
that's
where
vladimir
and
actually
brian
come
in,
and
you
know
we
have
the
open
discussion
just
to
confirm
that
everybody's
okay,
with
onboarding
those
two
but
really
would
like
to
get
at
least
one
more
a
couple
of
the
thing
couple
of
companies.
A
I've
talked
to
hasn't
panned
out
and
one
I'm
still
working
on
so
yeah,
similar
to
the
to
what
you've
got
here.
You
know
hoping
to
get
to
the
point
where
we
have
a
rotation,
and
you
know
we.
We
have
different
people,
doing
it
in
that
rotation,
so
that
no
one
one
person
or
one
company
has
to
do
it
every
single
time
and
sort
of
get
burnt
out
on
it.
So
I
think
that
I'm
hoping
that'll
make
things
better.
I
I
did
want
to
ask:
did
you
document
the
rotation
for
the
triage
somewhere?
A
B
You
know
there's
still
like
things
I'm
putting
together,
like
I
just
had
yesterday
had
asked
brian
and
jury
and
brian
warner
ended
up,
doing
it
to
create
a
private
slack
channel
or
because
we
needed
a
way
to
communicate.
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
should
have.
C
B
The
section
we
talked
about
it,
we
decided
to
have
a
slideshow,
so
there's
like
there's.
Definitely
things
that
are
not
yet
in
place
and
documentation
is
one
of
them.
I
wanted
to
add
real
quick.
So
so,
let's
leave
this
on
the
agenda
for
things
like
that,
I
mean.
Hopefully
we
can
get
this
closed
out.
You
know
in
another
month
or
so,
but
there's
definitely
work
still
to
be
done,
but
james
just
commented
in
the
issue
that
he's
he's.
B
He
thinks
he
can
get
back
involved
with
triaging
and
be
a
sixth
person
on
the
schedule,
which
I
think
is
great.
I
I
hit
the
heart-shaped
github
my
comments
and
everybody
who
can
hear
my
voice
should
do
the
same,
and
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
say
is
is
just
make
sure.
Danielle
doesn't
have
anything.
She
would
want
to
add
to
everything
we've
said
so
far,
because
she
was
there.
A
Okay
sounds
good.
The
next
issue
is
move
bnb
dev
to
node.js
dev
container.
This
is
number
641.
I
think
this
is
just
I
may
have
been.
I
can't
remember,
who
put
it
on
the
agenda
could
have
been
me
yeah.
I
put
it
on
the
the
tse
agenda,
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
we
got
enough
plus
ones,
and
I
see
rich
you
mentioned
we
could
put
on
these
end
as
well.
A
A
Part
of
it
is
that
it
takes
quite
a
while
just
to
get
to
the
point
where,
like
hey,
I've
compiled
node.js.
So
when
I
make
my
one
line,
change,
it
doesn't
take.
10
minutes
to
compile,
right
and-
and
the
discussion
we
ended
up
with
is
actually
a
container
where
you'd
pre-compiled
node
would
make
a
lot
of
sense.
And
basically,
if
you
could,
basically,
you
know
under
doctor,
say
I'm
going
to
run
this
container
everything's
compiled
you
make
your
little
change
and
it
recompiles
really
quickly.
That
would
actually
help
people
move
a
lot
more
quickly.
A
Tierney
worked
on
putting
together
the
container,
and
I
guess
not.
You
know
the
the
the
resources
that
you
need
to
build.
The
container.
The
longer
term
goal
would
hopefully
have
this
be
built
in
the
project
somewhere
and
publish
so
that
we
can
people
can
just
download
it,
but
he
started
working
in
his
own
repo,
and
this
is
moving
that
repo
into
the
org
so
that
we
can
collaborate
together
on
the
resources
used
to
build
what
that
container
would
be.
A
So
I
guess
the
you
know
there
hasn't
been
much
discussion
in
in
that
issue,
and
you
know
the
question
would
be.
Is
there
anybody
here?
Who
has
any
concerns
over
doing
that?
B
B
It
would
be
great
if
we
got
this
working
get
pod
times
out,
because
our
build
takes
so
long.
I
have
there's
an
issue
open
for
them
to
extend
their
time
out.
So
hopefully
that'll
work
out,
and
I
don't
know
if
it'll
I
don't
know
if
it
if
it
would
work
better
in
another
provider
or
something,
but
I
think
the
one
that
here
I
think
the
the
the
format
that
toony
chose
is
either
consumable
by
multiple
providers
already.
B
I
think
it's
already
on
get
pods
roadmap,
so
I
think
I
think
it's
probably
fine,
and
the
other
thing
I
wanted
to
mention
is
that
since
you
mentioned
tierney,
I
forgot
to
mention
that,
because
we're
supposed
to
announce
this,
that,
during
the
announcements
part
of
these
meetings,
that
his
his
nomination
has
been
open
for
seven
days
with
no
objections,
so
it
passes
he's
I'll,
be
on
boarding
him
as
a
collaborator.
B
A
I'm
just
adding
that
as
a
note
into
the
the
announcements
upfront,
and
so
I
guess
like
again,
anybody
else
have
any
comments
they'd
like
to
make
or
you
know,
or
you
know,
objection
to
the
assuming
that
if
we
nobody's
objecting
here
or
in
the
issue,
we
can
move
forward.
A
Okay,
okay,
so
that's
good!
We
will
move
that
forward.
The
the
next
one,
which
I
I
had
tried
to
put
on
the
agenda
but
didn't
make.
It
was
this
discussion
item
which
is
around
adopting,
and
I
I
guess
I
should
have
said
parts
of
the
electron.
A
A
Okay,
so
there
there's
the
link
there
was
there
isn't
really
any
discussion
in
that
discussion
item,
which
is
where
I
was
starting
discussion,
but
there
is
in
this
pr
that
tierney
opened.
A
A
D
A
Sure
so
yeah,
so
the
the
context
is
we
had
a
mini
summit,
an
x-10
mini
summit
a
week
or
so
ago.
I
can't
remember
exactly
when
we
we
took
a
deep
dive
into
two
things
that
were
identified
and
we've
landed
in
the
list
of
things
we
think
are
important
for
the
successive
node
going
forward.
A
You
know
a
couple
of
the
key
things
that
came
out
of
that
were
one:
the
current
model,
where
the
types
are
actually
maintained
separately
and
in
the
case
of
typescript
in
definitely
typed
is
the
model
that
everybody
there
believed
made
sense
like
nobody
was
advocating
for
us
bundling
in
types
or
anything
like
that.
There
were
people
from
the
from
the
definitely
type
team
and
they're,
like
the
flexibility
of
having
the
managed
separately
is,
is
the
way
to
go.
A
So
that's
one
thing
we're
going
to
document
and
we
can
have
some
more
discussion
when
that
gets
documented,
because
I
want
us
to
document
somewhere.
The
second
thing
that
came
out
of
it
was
that
what
the
the
the
type
systems
do
need
to
do,
though,
is
somehow
convert
from
our
apis
into
types
effectively.
A
So
the
key
thing
that
that
it
seemed
that
we
could
do
as
a
project
to
support
you
know
the
external
teams
and
orgs
and
people
who
want
to
have
good
typings
for
node
was
to
improve
how
we
can
provide
some
structured,
json
documentation.
A
Electron
generates
their
structure
json
from
their
docs,
and
they
they
are
able
to
do
it
more
effectively
because
they've
got
a
little
bit
more
structure
in
terms
of
like
how
they
use
the
headings
and
things
like
that,
so
the
suggestion
was,
and
they
already
actually
have
a
parser
which
parses
their
documentation
and
which
gives
you
two
things
one
it.
It
validates
that
when
we
make
documentation
changes
that
you're
not
breaking
your
generator
and
two
it
has.
A
You
know
it
converts
the
structure
they
do
have
into
something
which
is
actually
good
enough
to
generate
types
and
they
actually
automatically
generate
their
types
from
that.
So
we're
not
proposing
that
we
would
generate
the
types
whether
if
we
could
generate
the
json.
That
then,
would
let
the
other
teams
generate
it
without
having
to
do
as
much
manual
work.
That
would
add
value
so
because
there's
already
a
generator
for
electron,
the
thought
we
were
working
on
is:
can
we
adopt
the
structure
that
they
use
in
their
docs?
A
So
not
changing
our
wording
or
you
know
our
conventions
or
anything
like
that
in
terms
of
like
how
you
should
word
the
technical
content,
just
how
we
use
headings,
I
think
the
key.
The
key
changes
would
be,
how
we
use
the
headings
and
how
you
document
the
parameters-
and
you
know
tierney,
had
an
example
where
I
forget
which
one
he
did
but
like.
When
I
looked
at
the
two
of
them.
They
don't
look
that
different.
A
It's
just
that,
like
you
know,
the
the
headings
are
more
indented
or
whatever,
and
so
this
pr-
and
I
mean
the
original-
the
original
discussion
was
more
around
just
to
start
the
discussion
that
says
like
do.
We
agree
that
that's
a
good
direction
to
go
to
it
will
cause.
A
We'd
want
to
plan
to
do
it
incrementally,
so
that,
like
you,
could
opt
in
to
the
the
the
sort
of
parser
validating,
as
you
did,
file
by
file,
and
the
hope
was
also
that,
like
our
existing
documentation
generation-
and
this
is
where,
like
we
probably
have
some
more
work
to
be
sure-
wouldn't
actually
be
broken,
because
you
know
our
our
when
submit
our
prs
for
the
docs.
I
don't
think
there's
anything
that
validates
the
structure
so
like.
A
If
you
added
three
more
in
three
more
headings,
those
would
just
show
up
in
the
html,
we
don't
validate,
that
you
know
you're
using
headings
in
a
particular
way
or
not,
and
so
that
the
actual
existing
flow
of
publishing
the
the
the
html
wouldn't
change
the
json
itself.
The
structure
might
change
slightly,
but
we
did
have
the
discussion.
You
know
we,
the
people
who
were
consuming
it,
one
of
the
people.
The
definitely
type
group
was
like
we
totally
eat
that
turn.
If
we
get
something
better
in
the
long
run.
A
So
maybe
there's
some
other
people
who
are
major
users.
That
might
not
feel
that
way,
but
at
least
they
validated
that
that
would
be
useful
and
I'm
just
trying
to
think.
If
there's
anything
so
it
was
like
you
know,
and
we
wouldn't
immediately
replace
the
jason.
That's
there
like.
I
think
we
would
be
starting
by
you
know
having.
Ideally,
at
least
in
my
mind,
what
we
would
do
is
we
would
have
the
validators.
I
looked.
A
I
looked
at
the
the
electron
document
parser
I
tweaked
a
little
bit
to
say
like
could
we
add
in
an
opt-in,
so
you
can
say,
like
only
do
it
on
certain
files,
so
we
could
do
it
incrementally.
So,
ideally,
I
could
see
like
we
would
change.
A
One
file
opt
it
in
so
that
you
know
you
would
actually
get
checked
from
then
on
when
people
are
making
changes
and
we
would
generate
a
separate,
a
new
jyson
file,
which
I
don't
know
where
we'd
publish
or
whatever
but
like
this,
would
be
one
that
would
just
have
the
dock.
For
that
one
and
over
time
we
could
build
up
the
ones
which
were
actually
being
converted
over,
while
keeping
the
existing
html
and
the
existing
json
going.
As
it's
going.
D
In
terms
of
it
all
sounds
fantastic
man,
I'm
I'm
a
fan
of
that
format,
but
you
know
kind
of
the
one
thing
place
where
I
see
it.
Getting
complicated
and
difficult
longer
term
is
back
porting,
you
know
making
a
dock
change
and
then
back
pointing
to
the
lts
versions.
Is
the
plan
here
as
we're
doing
this
incrementally
to
also
back
port
incrementally
to
ensure
that
we
don't
run
into
those
issues.
A
I
think
that's
a
key
question
for
us
to
decide
like
which
is
better
to
backport
those
changes
or
to
not
backport
them,
and
then
you
know,
like
is
back
porting.
All
of
these
dock
changes
more
work
than
having
to
reconcile
that
the
changes
that
we
do
then
have
to
like
individually
back
part.
If
you
know
what
I
mean.
D
I
I
can
definitely
see
that
in
some
cases
like
like,
even
just
looking
at
merge
conflicts
or
or
whatever,
with
those
different
formats,
it's
going
to
get
a
bit
irritating
if
we
don't
back
port
them
as
as
we
go,
but
you
know
rich
is
right,
you
know
until
we
actually
start
playing
with
it,
it's
going
to
be
hard
to
know
for
sure.
A
B
I'll
say
that
I
I'm
very
interested
in
in
determining
what
the
absolute
minimum
alterations
we
can
make
to
our
to
our
to
our
doc
format.
Now
that
would
that
would
yield
these
benefits
would
be
and
as
you've
as
you've
said,
michael
but
just
sort
of
echoing
it
slash
amplifying
it.
You
know,
like
the
the
stylistic
elements
of
the
electron
style
guide,
I'm
just
not
interested
in.
C
B
Adopting
not
because
they're,
bad
or
good
or
anything,
but
just
because
you
know
like
this
is
not
what
we
should
be
talking
about.
It's
like
okay,
we
we've
adopted
the
microsoft
style
guide
done.
Let's
never
have
another
conversation
about
whether
we
use
sends
case
or
title
case
again.
We
just
have
microsoft
style
guide.
Tell
us!
You
know
that
kind
of
thing,
and
but
to
the
extent
that
there
are
things
that
we
can
do
to
enable
better,
tooling
and
improve
things
for
for
the
ecosystem
and
for
ourselves
awesome.
B
But
you
know
like
let's:
let's
definitely
you
know
incremental
would
be
great
and
and
finding
the
absolute
minimum
we
can
do
to
accomplish.
That
would
be
very,
very
helpful.
A
And
that's
exactly
like
I'm
100
with
the
what's
the
minimum
we
can
do,
and
I
I
should
have
thought
about
it
beforehand,
even
when
I
opened
the
issue
to
make
it
clear
that,
like
yeah,
when
we
style
guides
got
to
very
you
know,
all
those
things
like
the
microsoft
style
guide
is
what
people
think
of,
and
that's
not
at
all
what
we
should
have
been
putting
into
people's
minds.
So.
A
So
at
that
time,
but
yeah,
so
I
I
you
know,
I
think,
unless
are
there
questions
or
anything
else,
we
think
we
should
discuss
now.
You
know
to
help
help
move
it
forward,
or
is
it
like
back
to
the
issue
now
that
people
think
and-
and
you
know,
we'll
move
it
forward
there
and
with
a
little
bit
having
hopefully
with
people
having
a
little
more
context.
B
Yeah,
I
think
it's
back
to
the
issue
and
I
think
also
I'll
I'll
talk
to
tierney
about
this
one.
You
know
if
we
have
time
before
after
onboarding.
D
A
A
So
that's
that
I'm
hoping
that
you
know
that's
where
the
you
know
there
was
one
comment
that
it's
a
lot
of
work,
but
I
think
it's
the
kind
of
work
that
it
may
tell
to
still
take
some
time,
but
we
can
have
more
collaborators
and
sometimes
new
collaborators,
help
with
once
we
figure
out
the
the
hard
parts.
A
Okay
thanks,
I
think
that's
good
for
that.
We
can
take
a
quick
look
over
then
at
the
strategic
initiatives.
Let
me
just
pull
those
up.
A
Okay,
james
anything
on
quick,
http,
3.
D
Other
than
that
that
I,
within
in
the
next
month,
I
should
have
time
to
get
back
to
it,
which
I'm
super
happy
about.
There's
a
massive
pr
out
there
that
you
know
we
have
had
some
folks
starting
to
experiment
with
and
play
with.
They
found
all
kinds
of
issues.
I'm
I'm
getting
my
my
list
of
things
to
work
on
when
I,
when
I
can
get
back
to
it
during
a
few
weeks,
would
it
definitely
appreciate
other
folks
looking
at
it?
It
is.
D
It
is
big
I
understand,
and
one
of
the
things
I'm
going
to
be
doing
is
trying
to
find
ways
of
chunking
it
up
more
more
incrementally.
So
there
may
be
that
one
big
pr
might
actually
get
turned
into
a
a
bunch
of
smaller
pr's.
D
The
only
challenge
with
that
is,
they
may
not
be
complete
thoughts
right
like
it
may
not
be.
You
know
one
pr
with
full
functionality
it
might.
It
might
end
up
being
much
more
incremental
than
that,
but
it'll
make
it
easier
to
review.
So
that's
that's
where
it's
at
right.
Now,
what
I'm
anticipating
is
end
of
december
by
the
end
of
december,
I
should
be
able
to
have
time
freeing
up
to
start
working
on
it
again.
D
A
Okay
thanks
so
okay,
so
yeah
in
terms
of
the
strategic
initiatives,
that's
the
ones
that
we
have
on
the
list.
I
guess
I
I
just
if
we
depending
on
what
we
agree
on
the
the
documentation
front.
We
might
add
that
there's
one
of
these
in
the
future,
but
subject
to
the
discussions
that'll
take
place
in
the
issue.
A
So
that's
takes
us
to
the
end
of
the
agenda
before
we
close
out.
Is
there
anything
else
that
people
would
like
to
discuss.