►
Description
B
B
C
D
I
could
do
a
quick
announcement.
We
did
the
security
release
yesterday
before
v68
we're
all
updated
to
a
security,
vulnerability
idos
that
was
introduced
from
Mozilla
both
day.
There
was
a
regression
and
the
8.8
release
that
is
unrelated
and
there's
an
81
relief
prepared.
Today,
eight
release
also
came
with
HTTP
two,
not
behind
the
flag
and
that's
pretty
exciting.
C
Okay
right,
okay,
so
any
other
announcements.
C
A
Some
slides
that
you
may
or
may
not
be
able
to
see,
depending
on
who
you
are
those
slides,
are
linked
to
from
the
TSE
issue.
With
the
other
information
about
the
agenda
and
meeting
topics,
don't
worry
you're
not
missing
a
whole
lot.
If
you
can't
see
them,
they're,
mostly
just
organized
myself
and
they
were
put
together
in
about
15
minutes.
So
this
may
be
a
little
ragged
I
I.
A
Everybody
likes
members,
so
I
thought
I'd
start
with
some
pretty
simple
numbers.
As
of
now,
there
are
10
members
of
the
node.js
moderation
team.
The
most
recent
member
was
the
fourth
I
added
yesterday.
We're
really
appreciative
for
him
joining
the
group
for
reasons
that
I
will
get
to.
In
just
a
moment.
We've
had
two
meetings
since
this
team
was
established
and
we've
had
either
zero
or
two
incidents
requiring
moderation
depending
on
how
you
look
at
it
and
the
reason
I
affray
MIT.
A
But
there
has
been
no
there's
no
conversation
that
has
reached
a
point
where
it
is
needed.
Our
involvement
and
that's
awesome,
I
think
that
that's
kind
of
going
to
set
the
pattern
for
the
team,
which
is
that
we
really
aren't
going
to
have
a
whole
lot
to
do,
which
is
good,
because
we're
actually
a
pretty
small
team
and
for
reasons
I'll
discuss
in
just
a
second
and
one
thing
I
did
want
to
make
clear
early
on,
is
that
this
is
a
team
and
not
a
working
group,
and
the
reason
that
I
put
it.
A
A
Our
time
commitment
to
this
is
pretty
low
because
we
don't
come
up
with
our
own
policy.
We
really
haven't
come
up
with
any
thing
in
the
way
of
leadership.
We
don't
really
need
it
or
pretty
much
consensus
driven,
and
the
idea
is,
if
there's
anything
that
comes
up
that
needs
interpretation
beyond
our
group
that
will
be
passed
along
to
you,
one
of
the
relevant
other
live
leadership
organizations
within
the
foundation
in
the
community,
so
the
TSC,
the
calm,
calm
and
the
Foundation
Board,
and
we
are
basically
a
resource
that
is
there
to
you.
A
You
know
provide
a
timely
response
when
needs
warrant
for
anything
that
requires
moderation.
So
our
most
valuable,
like
trait
as
a
group,
is
the
trust
and
faith
of
the
community
and
the
board.
Our
job
is
to
fill,
facilitate
and
not
to
say
what
is
or
isn't
valid
to
be
talked
about
like
we
should
never
be
doing
anything
that
isn't
clearly
governed
either
by
the
nodejs
moderation
policy
or
the
code
of
conduct.
Those
are
our
you
know
kind
of
our
two
working
documents.
A
This
is
something
that
I
and
a
couple
other
people
proposed
when
we
had
our
first
meeting
and
there's
kind
of
a
broad
consensus
within
the
group
that
that's
how
we
should
operate,
because
there
are
people
who
are
involved
so
deeply
within
the
rest
of
the
organization.
That
means
there
needs
to
be
some
sort
of
way
or
people
to
tap
out
of
discussions
that
allow
that
that
they're
involved
in
we
saw
some
of
this
in
the.
A
All
that
happened
and
within
August,
where
there
are
people
who
have
very
strongly
held
points
of
view,
who
were
also
trying
to
kind
of
guide
and
moderate
the
discussion
while
they
were
having
it
and
that
doesn't
work
super
great
for
a
whole
bunch
of
reasons.
So
one
of
the
things
that
we'd
like
to
get
established-
this
is
something
that's
actually
on.
My
plate
is
to
come
up
with
a
formal
policy
for
recusal.
A
So
you
can
just
say:
I'm
not
going
to
be
involved
in
this
discussion
because
I'm
too
directly
involved
in
it
one
way
or
the
other,
and
then
somebody
else
from
the
moderation
team
will
have
to
step
in
and
take
over
any
moderation
duties
that
are
required.
It
shouldn't
be
more
than
you
know
a
paragraph
or
two,
but
the
idea
is
to
have
there
be
formal
channel
for
somebody
to
say
I'm,
not
somebody
who
is
I'm,
not
somebody
who's
good,
to
be
involved
in
this
discussion
and
also
to
have
other
people
say.
A
You
should
recuse
yourself
from
this
discussion,
because
you
are
obviously
participating
in
it
as
somebody
who
has
a
stake
or
a
position
that
they
need
to
establish,
and
we
do
have
members
of
the
team
on
all
three
of
the
board,
the
calm,
calm
and
the
TSC,
which
is
super
helpful,
because
that
makes
it
easier
for
us
to
float
up
whatever
policies,
suggestions
or
requests.
We
might
have
to
the
relevant
teams
to
have
them
deal
with
them.
A
I
have
a
little
little
typo
in
there
just
ignore
that
I've
covered
in
there
twice
in
that
headline.
With
the
fourth
eye
joining
us,
we
now
have
global
time
zone
coverage.
A
Don't
think
that
you
know
I,
don't
think
it
makes
sense
for
us
or
is
even
really
possible
for
us
to
try
and
like
have
any
kind
of
global
hegemony
on
all
discussions
at
anything
having
to
do
with
node
anywhere.
But
we
have
had
some
discussions
about
taking
over
the
IRC
channel
moderation
duties,
but
we
need
to
do
that.
We
need
to
have
people
who
are
available
in
a
timely
manner
whenever
this
happens.
So
we
have
a
small
team,
we're
not
evenly
distributed
a
bunch
of
US
or
Europe.
A
A
bunch
of
us
are
on
the
west
coast,
and
now
we
have
one
person
in
India.
We
need
to
kind
of
spread
that
out
and
maybe
do
a
little
a
little
recruiting,
try
and
get
more
even
coverage.
I
think
also
we're
looking
at
the
the
idea
of
having
to
be
an
on-call
rotation,
something
that
I
forgot
to
put
on
the
slide
and
should
have
is
that
we
do
have
a
slack
workspace
that
we
use
for
coordinating
things
and
for
kind
of
trying
to
hash
out
any
issues
that
come
up
in
moderation.
A
Mostly,
it's
just
been
talking
about
how
we
organize
ourselves.
Thus
far,
our
goals
as
a
team
is
to
iron
out
the
moderation
policy,
because
now
that
we're
actually
trying
to
put
it
into
practice,
we
are
running
into
things
where
it's
just
like.
It's
not
really
clear
what
we
need
to
do
in
all
cases.
The
really
good
example
of
this
is
that
it's
like
it's
not
really
clear
how
the
moderation,
repo,
which
is
private.
A
E
A
Team
will
not
be
doing
that
on
a
Friday,
so
we
will
make
sure
that
we
come
up
with
some
sort
of
cadence
for
keeping
that
up
state,
but
we
need
to
figure
out
what
the
policy
is
around
that
also.
We
need
to
figure
out
how
we're
going
to
do
what
we
do
and
think,
and
hopefully
figure
that
out
before
things
get
too
hot
and
heavy
right
now.
A
It
looks
like
the
only
way
for
us
to
be
able
to
moderate
comments
on
all
of
the
repos
across
the
entire
organization
is
for
us
to
be
made
org
owners,
that's
the
concept
that
github
has
for
this
kind
of
thing.
That's
a
pretty
heavy
hammer,
there's
an
expectation
that
all
of
us
are
holding
ourselves
and
are
being
held
to
a
higher
degree
of
accountability
than
average
collaborators,
because
we
do
have
these
special
powers
to
go
and
indirectly
interfere
with.
A
You
know
business
being
done
within
the
organization,
but
I
think
a
number
of
us
are
still
pretty
uncomfortable
with
the
idea
needing
to
be
org
owners.
To
do
this,
so
we've
talked
about
using
notice,
for
example,
William
kakis
thought
that
would
allow
it
to
have
those
powers,
and
then
we
would
have
certain
powers
delegated
to
us
and
that
could
all
be
audited
and
controlled.
A
There's
been
issues
with
people
trying
to
self
moderate
or
moderate
the
discussion
where
it
gets
into
you
awkward
spaces,
whether
it's
people
being
concerned
about
being
toned
police
or
whether
it's
like
it
turns
into
an
argument
about
what
constitutes
a
violation
of
the
code
of
conduct
or
you
know
like
like
or
people
just
saying
you
know,
I'm
not
going
to
moderate
myself.
This
is
important
like
there
needs
to
be.
It
needs
to
be
something
where
there
can
be
no
question
that
this
is
what
needed
to
happen
and
that
there's
an
audit
log
like
that.
A
All
these
things
are
handled
by
a
uniform
set
of
policies,
so
eventually
we'd
like
to
have
the
organization,
be
the
team
be
in
a
place
where
we
can
take
over
all
those
moderation,
duties
and
again,
I
want
to
stress,
like
our
job
is
not
to
say
what
is
or
is
not
permissible
within
the
balance
of
the
organization.
It's
just
to
say
we
do
have
these
policies,
we
all
agree
to
them
by
part
of
being
part
of
this
organization
this
it.
This
conversation
has
gone
outside
the
bounds
of
these.
A
Assuming
that
we
have
the
resources
necessary
to
handle
this,
and
also
like
I,
said
like
our
goal,
is
to
have
as
little
to
do
as
possible
right,
like
that's
another
part
of
the
reason
why
I
like
to
think
of
this
as
being
a
team
rather
than
working
like
I,
don't
want
to
see
us
building
out
a
bunch
of
stuff
which
we
shouldn't
need
any
of
this
stuff.
We
should
only
build
out
as
many
tools
NEADS
actually
do
our
jobs,
and
we
shouldn't
have
to
do
that
job
very
frequently.
A
So
that's
all
I
got
I've
got
links
at
them
and
here
to
the
moderation
policy.
A
little
bit
of
confusion
came
up
recently
over
where
that
lives,
because
it
now
exists
in
two
places
under
both
no
jest
ESC
repo
and
under
the
nodejs
admin,
repo
and
I.
Think
short
term
goals
is
to
just
basically
remove
the
copy
at
CSC,
because
the
living
document
in
the
one
against
all
policy
changes
should
be
made,
ideally
in
the
form
of
pull
requests.
A
The
idea
is
that,
since
we
may
have
discussions
and
much
like
the
TFC
does
there
may
be
discussions
within
those
minutes
that
are
sensitive
and
shouldn't
be
carried
outside.
The
bounds
of
the
group.
They'll
have
to
be
like
laundered
in
some
way
before
the
pusher
records
and
I.
Think
one
of
the
things
that
we
may
have
decided
in
previous
meeting
and
again
I
have
to
review
them,
and
it's
clear
was
that
we
will
have
like.
If
you
look
at
the
moderation
policy,
there
are
regular
work
products
that
come
from
the
team
which
is
like.
A
We
need
to
have
a
record
of
moderation,
team
activity
for
every
month
that
is
in
a
publicly
accessible
place
and
like
concentrate
on
those
products,
rather
than
actually
like
just
sharing
our
meeting
minutes,
because
many
minutes
may
or
may
not
be
of
value
relative
to
the
things
that
were
actually
obligated
to
produce.
As
a
byproduct
of
the
operation
of
the
team.
C
Sure,
okay
I
was
just
asking
because
you
know
most
workgroups
end
up
putting
them
somewhere
where
people
can
take
a
look.
The
other
thing
I
want
to
ask
is,
with
the
scope
clearly
set,
as
you
know,
enforcing
as
opposed
to
defining
policy,
you
know,
do
we
you
know,
does
the
moderation
team
think
that
there
needs
to
be
something
done
on
the
defining
front
door
or
you
know
we
have
a
set
of
policies
and
we're
in
a
good
state,
because.
C
A
A
That's
policy,
like
we
really
haven't,
had
an
opportunity
to
test
this
stuff
under
fire,
yet
which
is
great
but
like
we
were,
we
basically
kind
of
all
agreed
that
it
would
be
best
to
iterate
on
the
policy
as
necessary
in
response
to
events,
and
that
may
make
us
slow
to
respond
in
some
cases
for
stuff
early
on,
but,
like
I,
think
it's
better
to
do
that
than
to
try
and
like
game
everything
out
and
end
up
with
something.
That's
either
like
cumbersome
or
a
source
of
disagreement
in
and
of
itself
right,
like
I.
A
A
The
TSC
in
the
column
or
are
both
gonna
have
feels
about
this
stuff,
and
if
things
get
super
hectic,
it
may
even
come
to
the
point
where
the
board
has
opinions
about
these
things
and
all
or
those
groups
should
be
in
a
position
to
you
make
changes
to
the
policy
right.
So
we
don't
just
we
don't
dispose
right
like
we
only
suggest
right.
C
So
so,
right
so
I
think
to
interpret
your
answer.
Is
it
sounds
like
you
don't
think,
there's
anything
that
you
know
the
TSE
has
to
run
off
and
do
on.
You
guys
will
will
make
suggestions
if
you
come
across
them
like
it,
and
it
makes
total
sense
what
you
said
to
base
that
on
an
experience
that
you
get
while
implementing
what
we
have
today.
So
so
the
TSE
is.
A
group
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
action.
Anything
and
we'll
see,
suggestions
over
time.
That
you
know
we'll
need
to
weigh
in
on
is
that.
A
Right,
so,
if
we
need
to,
if
we
need
to
extend
something
to
you,
we
can
we
can
make
it
Rich's
job
to
bring
that
to
the
group
and
like
we
almost
did
that
with
the
update.
But
he's
like
somebody,
who's
been
more
involved
because
you
know
he's
got
other
things
to
do
so
here.
I
am
but
yeah
I
think
they're
having
those
lines
like
well.
G
D
There's
very,
very
interesting
conflicts
there,
especially
if
the
leaders
are
proposing,
like
the
actual
like
process
for
that.
There's
the
issue
that
I
open
where
I
had
some
very
loose
language
around
it
and
we
had
a
conversation
in
there.
This
is
an
example
of
something
that
I
would
be
interested
in
hearing
a
process
that
the
moderation
team
would
be
interested
in
following
and
that
be
interested
at
I
even
be
willing,
as
a
TSE
number
to
pair
on
it.
A
So
that's
that's.
I
was
kind
of
getting
to
that
elliptically
a
little
bit
earlier,
which
is
like
we
ultimately
as
a
community,
have
to
have
rules
that
we're
all
willing
to
be
bound
by
and
if
those
rules
are
explicit
and
objective
enough,
then
again
the
moderation
teams.
Job
is
just
to
enforce
the
policy
and
it
doesn't
matter
who
that's
being
enacted
against
right,
like
it
doesn't
matter
whether
it's,
whether
it's
somebody
who's
on
the
board
or
somebody
who's
on
the
TSC
or
somebody
who
runs
a
working
group
or
whatever
like
that.
A
But
it's
it's
purely
a
mechanical
process
of
looking
at
a
policy
and
saying
is
this
outside
of
the
bounds
of
that
policy?
If
so,
then
we're
going
to
pull
time
to
moderate
this
comment
and
we're
gonna,
tell
somebody
hey,
you've
been
moderated
or
hey,
you've
been
temporarily
banned
or
hey
man
right
like
it's,
it's
a
it's!
It's
it
like.
We
got
it.
A
D
Think
part
of
the
hard
thing
to
balance
there
and
and
I'm
still
I'm
still
trying
to
figure
it
out.
Myself
is
like
if
the
moderation
team
is
the
team's
is
gonna
have
to
follow
through
and
act
on
the
process.
I
think
it's
important
that
their
stakeholders,
and
at
least
you
know,
agreeing
to
what
they'd
be
willing
to
do
at
the
same
time,
they're
like
I,
think
it's
extremely
important
and
I
don't
think
the
intention
was
ever
to
stay,
but
the
moderation
team
was
deciding
the
process
yeah
like.
A
I
think
that
we
maintain
that
trust
and
faith
of
the
community,
and
that
means
that
really
has
to
be
the
rules
themselves
that
are
shouldering
the
load
of
like
whatever
social
pressure
comes
to
bear
like
it.
Somebody
has
to
make
it
like
a
tough
call
like
that
call
has
to
ultimately
be
handled
by
the
policy
we
have
like,
like
you
get
what
I'm
saying
here.
Do
you
see
why
I'm
like
I'm,
emphasizing
this
so
hard
yeah.
C
Yeah
I
think
I
I
think
at
this
point
we
should
probably
take
continue
that
discussion
offline,
because
we're
probably
running
out
of
time
in
terms
of
what
we
can
afford
in
our
agenda
today,
but
you
know
maybe
miles
enforced
and
whoever
else
miles
you
think,
should
be
involved.
You
know
whether
that's
future
discussion
and
the
greater
TSC
or
some
subgroup,
if
you
can
facilitate
that,
that
would
be
great.
D
C
Sounds
good
and
thank
you
for
us
for
a
very,
very
good
update
that
was
I,
think
very
good
and
effective
all
right,
okay.
So
let's
move
on
to
the
rest
of
our
agenda.
The
next
thing
we
had
on
the
agenda
we
talked
about
this
week
of
moving
them
closer
to
the
beginning.
Was
the
issue
number
three
d3
the
proposal
to
form
a
governance
working
group?
D
G
Yep
action
item
is
I'm,
just
working
on
setting
up
all
I'm
going
to
be
updating
the
the
doodle
with
a
few
more
dates
sometimes
see
if
we
can
get
more
people
to
respond.
I
only
had
I
think
six
TFC
members
respond
to
that
which
was
rather
disappointing.
I
want
to
see
if
we
can
give
him
a
few
more
and
then
go
from
there.
G
C
G
C
C
C
So
we're
bringing
it
around
I
mean
there
I
see,
there's
been
lots
of
discussion
this
week
with
rod
chiming
in
to
help
review.
You
know
it
looks
like
we're
on
a
path
to
getting
something
where
you
know
at
least
we'll
have
the
option
to
compile
with
either
or
and
and
do
some
testing,
which
is
good.
Is
there
any
I
think
miles
you'd
added
it
to
the
agenda
there,
any
other
specific
things
we
need
to
discuss
on
this
one
I
can.
H
Add
a
couple
of
things:
you
know
it's
the
kinda
current
state
of
it.
It's
looking
like
it's
getting
ready
to
land,
so
everyone
has
concerns
dropping
now.
This
is
not
to
switch
to
one
point.
One
point:
zero:
it
is
just
to
provide
the
option
to
compile
against,
and
this
is
going
to
be
an
important
step
because
remember
that
we
run
out
of
OpenSSL
ones
very
to
support
with
no
light.
So
no
ten
needs
to
have
something
else.
We
don't
know
what
the
next
LTS
for
OpenSSL
ins,
because
it's
not
been
released.
H
Yet
it's
not
gonna,
be
one
one
zero,
maybe
one
one
one,
but
this
is
the
first
step
in
getting
there
and
we
just
need
to.
We
need
to
do
some
stuff
on
the
bill
side
to
ensure
that
we
can
test
one
one
over
and
beyond,
but
right
now
it
works
against.
This
change
still
works
against
one
zero.
Two,
so
I
suspect
it'll
land.
Sometime
soon.
D
So
I
had,
after
the
last
meeting,
created
a
doodle
and
sent
it
out
to
try
to
create
a
meeting
for
this
week
and
Michael
Dawson
and
I
were
the
only
ones
who
filled
it
out
to
be.
To
be
honest,
especially
if
I'm
going
to
be
taking
on
a
larger
role
with
our
module
stuff.
I,
don't
know
that
I
have
the
bandwidth
to
drive
this
one
rod,
because
you
have
the
additional
context
and
like
knowledge
and
OpenSSL,
would
you
be?
Would
you
be
willing
to
be
a
champion
for
that
I.
H
Could
do
but
I
don't
know
what
there
is
to
discuss
what
what
is?
Is
it
just
a
matter
of
having
information
available
because
I'm
not
sure,
there's
decisions
that
can
be
made
yet
because
of
this
problem
of
not
there's
only
one
LTS
version
of
OpenSSL
right
now,
that's
one
zero,
two
there's
no
other
options,
so
this
is
really
a
matter
of
preparing
ourselves
for
for
no
Tim
and-
and
we
just
don't
know
between
now
and
then,
what's
going
to
be
able
to
yes,
so.
D
What
I
think
would
make
sense
would
be
a
getting
a
group
of
people
in
who
know
that
OpenSSL
to
discuss
it,
examining
other
potential
ssl
options
and
then
also
trying
to
get
in
touch
with
the
ssl.
The
openness
of
cell
team
themselves
to
find
out.
If
there's
information,
that's
not
public
or
if
there's
stuff,
that's
being
discussed.
That
can
maybe
help
us
make.
C
C
H
D
Think
I
think,
to
be
honest,
the
doodle
can
be
safely
ignored
at
this
point
on
Wednesday
I.
Don't
think
the
meetings
gonna
happen
this
week
and
it
was
more
just
like
I'm
realizing
that
I'm
stretching
myself
too
thin
and
I
can't
drive
this
one.
So
if
you're
able
to
get
up,
I'd
really
appreciate
that
okay.
C
I
think
they
are
I
think
the
the
best
outcome
because
of
the
uncertainty
now
is
at
least
as
to
sort
of
put
together
a
plan
that
says
you
know
here
are
the
problems
here.
The
things
and
like
you
know
concretely
say
that
if
you
know,
for
example,
if
there's
not
nothing
from
open
as
a
cell
by
a
certain
deadline
like
what
are
we
gonna
do
right,
yeah.
H
It's
probably
what
maybe
the
way
to
do
it.
Maybe
what
I
should
do
is
actually
just
craft
a
document
that
outlines
the
current
state
of
play
and
it
may
be
even
proposals
for
our
position
and
then
get
a
group
to
review
and
and
agree
on
that,
because
it
seems
to
me
that
biggest
problem
here
is
there's
so
few
people
that
interested
in
this
context
and
then
no
but
nothing
about
it,
and
we
keep
on
having
having
these
discussions.
It's
a
little
bit
like
it's
models,
but
a
little
bit
less
controversial
over
yeah.
C
H
Like
are
you
guys
should
put
support,
Liebherr,
SSL
and
then
what's
the
answer
to
that,
there's
only
a
few
people
that
really
can
give
answers
to
that.
So
having
that
kind
of
information
is
some
documented
form,
at
least
for
the
TSE,
might
be
helpful,
I'm,
not
sure
how
much
more
we
can
do
at
this
point
other
than
just
document
I
think.
C
H
C
D
Things
worth
considering
here
too
and
I'm
not
saying
that
we
need
to
do
a
nucular
option,
but
from
LTS
we
did
have
problems
with
getting
open,
SSL
tool
and
patches
on
older
versions,
even
patches
that
were
reviewed,
a
really
laborious
process
and
did
not
have
a
lot
of
response.
So
we
don't
have
a
clear
LTS
release
from
the
OpenSSL
and
we're
gonna
have
to
start
floating
patches
or
working
with
some,
including
batches.
D
The
benefit
of
using
open,
ssl
over
a
number
of
alternatives
is
not
that
high,
so
I
think
we
also
very
worthwhile
and
then
what
the
other
major
SSL
libraries
are.
What
SSL
libraries
are
being
embedded
in
other
runtimes,
that
we
have
support
and
just
kind
of
get
idea
of
what
our
options
are.
It
may
even
make
to
reach
out
to
Debian
or
some
of
the
dead
maintain
errs,
because,
if
they're
in
a
way
maintaining
their
own
LTS,
potentially
we
could
look
at
down
streaming
that,
instead
of
said
of
the
official
release,
yeah.
H
H
H
Just
again
go
back
to
that
issue.
If
you
want
to
review
it,
I
suspect
it'll
land
soon,
because
it's
pretty
good
code-
and
it
doesn't
really
impact-
know
very
much.
It
bugged
out.
There's
any
reason
to
pull
it
back
onto
no
Nate,
but
it'll
probably
go
into
node,
9
and
I.
Don't
even
think
it's
assembler
minor!
Oh,
there
is
actually
a
bunch
of
deprecations
that
will
have
to
go
in
there,
that'll
impact,
node,
9
and
then
10.
So
we
have
to
change
a
few
API
things.
H
C
H
C
As
I
was
thinking,
we
could
probably
take
this
off
the
agenda.
Everybody
agrees
like
the
Tasya
Genda
done
that
michael.
D
What
may
be
helpful,
and
we
we
should
talk
about
this
offline-
is
rather
than
being
on
the
agenda
as
a
discussion
point
I
think
it
would
make
sense
to
have
a
rolling
items
on
the
agenda
that
are
important
for
the
TSA
to
remember
so
it
doesn't
yes.
This
end
modules
are
two
examples
of
ones
that
I
think
are
important
to
remain
on
the
agenda
as
like
a
floating
item,
but
not
necessarily
something
we
have
to
talk
about.
Oh.
D
C
I
I
agree
something
like
a
but
yes,
a
separate.
Another
tag
would
be
good.
You
know,
I
and
I
agree
that,
having
is
that
having
us
sort
of
our
I
think
that
fits
in
with
the
initiatives
you
know
here
are
the
things
there
are
initiatives
and
therefore,
like
each
meeting,
we
could
just
review
if
there's
something
to
talk
about
yeah,
okay.
So,
let's.
I
I,
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
on
there
anymore.
I
think
I
probably
put
it
on
there,
because
Reuben
was
I,
had
a
blocking
objection,
but
he's
he
since
removed
it
I'm.
So
just
basically
look
like
it
was
heading
for
vote
on
and
the
vote
was
gonna
be
on
what
to
name
the
method.
Everybody
wants.
The
method
expose.
Just
some
people
wanted
to
be
called
util
dot
equals
some
people
want
to
be.
You
told
that
is
equal.
You
told
that
is
deep.
Equal.
You
told
this
deep,
strict
equal.
I
F
I
I
I
My
yeah
that's
also
mines
the
buffer
constructor,
so
I
had
taken
the
action
item
of
determining
the
sense
of
the
TSC,
because
there
was
some
interactive
that
maybe
the
sense
was
that
we
shouldn't
plan
to
deprecate
the
buffer
constructor
to
run
time.
Deprecated
the
buffer
constructor
at
any
point
turns
out.
That
is
not
the
case
sentiment
as
best
I
could
tell
from
the
Survey
Monkey
results
of
14
TSC
members
is
that
there
is
a
desire
to
run
time
deprecated
the
buffer
constructor.
At
some
point
in
the
future,
there
have
been
two
questions
that
were
raised.
I
One
was
whether
or
not
you
know
we
wanted
to
ever.
Do
it
or
you
know
we're
we
just
like
wasting
everybody's
time
from
the
perspective
of
people
who
wanted
it.
The
answer
there
apparently
is
now
no
and
now
then
there's
the
second
question,
which
is
okay.
What
are
the
criteria
by
which
the
buffer
constructor
will
get
a
runtime
deprecation
and
I?
I
First,
my
personal
opinion
is
that
the
answer
to
that
is
probably
you
can't
say
at
this
time
and
we're
you
know
we'll
we'll
check
again
in
six
months
and
we'll
know
we'll
know
it.
When
we
see
it
kind
of
thing,
I,
don't
think
anybody
wants
to
put
a
stake
in
the
sand
and
say
you
know
when
you
decrease
this
to
X
percentage
or
when
10.0
is
out
and
canary
in
the
Gold
Bond
doesn't
show
any
failures.
Then
that's
good
enough
or
anything
like
that.
I
C
C
C
Okay,
so
basically
it's
remove
it
from
the
agenda
at
this
point
and
it
can
be
reordered
if
needed.
Yep,
okay
done.
Okay,
the
next
issue
we
already
talked
about
three
three,
so
the
next
one
is
who
should
be
an
OGS
security
who
should
have
access
to
the
private
repo?
This
is
358
I'm,
just
reopening
this
one
to
see
where
the
discussion
is
on
that
guy.
C
I
C
D
That
we
let
the
security
working
group
come
up
with
it
like
a
fully
formed
and
thought
through
proposal
that
they
can
pitch
to
the
TSP.
Perhaps
they
want
to
like
ping
us
for
information
in
between
and
make
sure
that
they're
on
the
right
path.
But
it's
like
I'd
like
to
empower
that
working
group
to
help
design
a
process.
C
Okay,
the
next
issue
is
number
12
in
the
mini
PO.
Now
this
has
actually
been
on
our
agenda
for
quite
a
while.
It's
documenting
the
expectations
for
the
TSC
and
Kham
Kham
members
we're
actually
at
a
point
as
a
at
least
as
of
earlier
today,
where
you
know
there
was
no
objections
and
a
good
number
of
approvals.
So
it's
looking
like
it
would
land
by
the
end
of
this
week.
Calm
calm
is
actually
also
gonna
to
have
it
on
our
agenda
just
to
see,
if
anybody
you
know
make
sure
nobody.
F
C
B
B
C
D
Otherwise,
it's
possible
that
we
would
create
an
anchor
at
the
discussion
would
be
coming
from
I.
Also,
personally,
don't
think
that
we
need
to
block
this
expectation
document
on
those
values.
I
think
I
think
that
it's
I
think
that's
something
that's
slightly
vague
in
this
particular
case
is
better
than
nothing,
but
that's
just
my
personal,
my
personal
take
on
it
and
I'm
open
to
be
convinced
of
otherwise.
J
J
B
D
B
B
B
E
D
C
I
I
was
talking
to
the
mute,
but
we
did
have
the
meet.
We
did
have
an
original
meeting
yesterday
and
you
know
we
spent
the
whole
hour.
We
agreed
we
needed
to
continue
that
with
a
group
of
people
from
the
teams
who
are
interested
so
I
think
miles.
You're
gonna
set
up
a
follow-on
meeting
right
so,
instead
of
discussing
it
in
the
the
small
amount
of
time
we'd
have
in
the
regular
meetings,
we're
gonna
continue
to
have
a
set
of
dedicated
meetings
for
that
yeah.
D
I
think
the
doodle
already
went
out
for
another
meeting
tomorrow.
I
think
the
plan
right
now
is
that
as
a
group,
we're
going
through
a
high-level
agenda
so
that
privately
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page
and
then
once
we've
got
that
we're
gonna
open
the
conversation
as
a
as
a
publicly
broadcast
meeting.
But
we
just
want
to
make
sure.
D
Someone
really
did
not
like
what
I
just
said,
but
I
think
I
think
the
idea
was
that
right
now
we're
just
doing
in
our
private
session,
because
it
is
such
a
sensitive
topic
to
make
sure
that
we
can
have
an
open
discussion
about
it
to
find
a
alignment
and
then
once
we
have
that
we
are
going
to
continue
discussion,
but
in
a
more
open
manner.
Does
anyone
remember
who
sent
around
the
doodle
for
a
meeting
tomorrow?
James?
Was
that
you?
D
K
D
C
D
C
B
D
The
intention
was
that
there's
some
floating
moderation
work
that
needs
to
be
done.
It's
maybe
a
governance
problem
that
maybe
and
I
was
just
adjusting
that
we
get
together.
A
group
of
stakeholders
from
the
comm
come
the
TSC
and
the
moderation
team
to
work
through
and
discover.
You
know
like
what
are
the
edge
cases
in
our
process
right
now
and
what
are
the
things
that
we
need
to
work
on
is
where
the
appropriate
people
to
work
on
them.