►
From YouTube: 2021-08-04-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
So
welcome
to
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
meeting
for
august
4th
2021
we'll
follow
the
agenda
in
the
issue,
which
was
tagged
in
the
repo
which
is
issue
number
one:
zero,
six
five
and
I
guess
before
we
get
started,
does
anybody
have
any
announcements
that
they'd
like
to
share.
B
There
was
a
16
dot
x
book
release
yesterday.
Thank
you,
cargus
michael.
A
A
In
terms
of
the
cpc
and
boarding
updates,
I
don't
have
any
update
on
the
board
side
of
things.
I
know
rich
you're
officially
now
our
cpc
member.
So
thanks,
I
don't
know
if
you
have
anything
you
want
to
bring
up
on
that
front.
A
A
Yeah
next
week
is
a
working
session
and
I
think
we
agreed
to
cancel
it
just
as
so.
Okay.
So,
let's
move
on
then
to
the
issues
which
are
tagged
in
the
agenda,
so
the
first
one
which
is
tagged
as
errors
display
node.js
version
at
the
end
of
stack
traces
number
38332
this
one
I
actually
added
on
to
the
the
tc
agenda.
A
It
wasn't
necessarily
closing
in
on
agreement.
In
terms
of
you
know,
people
agreeing
that
it's
worth
it
there's
some
back
and
forth.
So
I
thought
it
would
actually
be
good
to
get
some
tsc
feedback
on
on
this
to
see.
If
we
can,
you
know
help
nudge
that
in
the
right
the
right
direction,
you
know
the
pr
itself
is
basically
adding
the
node
version
to
stack
traces
in
certain
cases
so
that
you,
you
know,
say
you
get
a
stack
trace
reported.
A
You
know
directly
from
that
which
version
of
node
it
was
to
a
number
of
people.
It
seems
it
seems
useful,
but
there's
you
know
at
least
one
contributor
who
thinks
it's
not
necessarily
worth
the
trouble.
A
D
Just
one
line
in
summaries:
the
fact
that
the
contention
is
around-
if
you
can
cover
it
under
a
flag,
then
that
would
solve
breaking
in
the
field.
But
then
the
whole
purpose
of
getting
the
node.js
version
in
the
call
stack
is
the
fact
that
you
don't
need
to
prepare
anything
on
the
runtime
to
get
that
information.
If
you
have
this
that
liberty,
then
you
can
go
and
check
with
the
user
to
see
what
is
the
node.js
version.
So
it's
it's
more
about
usability
versus
backward
compatibility,
questions.
D
So
there
could
be
scripts
and
other
other
test
cases,
largely
which
expect
a
certain
shape
and
structure
for
the
call
stack
trace
and,
for
example,
the
line
number
a
specific
format.
How
a
stack
frame
would
look
like
in
the
call
stack
message
and
the
node.js
version
coming
in
the
bottom
of
it
would
break
that
static.
Assumption.
A
So,
like
you
know,
it
did
require
changes
to
a
number
of
our
tests
and
that's
it
is
mark
sember
major.
For
that
reason,
in
terms
of
you
know,
for
tests
in
particular,
who
are
dependent
on
a
particular
stack
frame
shape,
it
can
have
an
impact,
but
it's
basically
adding
that
one
line,
so
it
would
depend
on
how
tightly
you're
you
know,
comparing
the
stock
against
something
else.
E
B
D
I
can
code
several
instances
in
the
help
repo
where
we
had
to
go
back
to
user
to
ask
for
the
node.js
version.
So
if
the
exception
is
carrying
the
version
information,
that's
definitely
going
to
be
a
good
usability
from
the
serviceability.
D
A
C
G
I
think
we
already
did
changes
on
the
not
stack
traces
in
v15.
I
think
when
we
change
the
shape
of
internal
modules
frames
in
the
traces-
and
I
don't
think
we
have
got
a
lot
of
reports-
that
it
was
breaking
a
lot
of
people,
so
I
would
think
it
might
be
okay
to
try
and
see
if
someone
complains.
H
A
A
F
If
I
understood
correct,
you
would
want
to
add
another
backframe
pretty
much
that
would
play
via
node.js
as
a
spec
frame,
how
it
is
visualized
at
the
moment
instead
of
having.
H
It
below
other
properties,
on
the
other
and
no
sorry,
not
an
additional
stack
frame,
but
instead
of
using
a
node
column,
then
the
file
name
for
the
internal
stack
frames,
maybe
node
column,
the
version
call
on
the
file
name
or
any
other
compatible
format.
I
I
don't
know
if
that
would
break
stuff,
but
wouldn't.
F
H
F
I
mean
about
breaking
or
not
it's
only
about
exceptions
and
that
are
fatal,
so
someone
would
have
to
actively
listen
on
the
output
from
a
child
process,
for
example,
and
then
parse
that
output
to
expect
the
specific
ending
from
an
error
message,
and
that
is
not
all
that
likely.
E
B
A
Trouble
would
be,
I
think
the
only
trouble
is
that
you
know
you're,
like
our
tests
like
if
it
and
and
tests
are
not,
you
know,
I
think
we
had
to
change
a
good
number
of
tests,
but
that's
so
it
may
happen
to
other
people's
tests.
I
think
it's
much
much
less
likely
as
as
ruben
was
saying
that
it
actually
affects
real.
B
B
Looks
like
it
hasn't
happened
yet,
but
why
don't
I
just
go?
Kick
it
off
right
now,
just
so
someone
can
look
at
the
results
when
it
finishes
running
sounds
good
yeah,
but
but
I
I
mean
I'd
be
a
I
mean
I
don't
know
when
was
the
objection
made
here,
whoops.
B
I
mean
yeah
yeah,
I
I
we
can.
We
can
keep
the
objection
conversation
going
in
there
and
you
know
like
keep
trying
to
keep
the
conversation.
You
know
dialogue
for
another
week
or
something,
but
I
would
I
would
I
would
be
in
favor
of
just
having
a
vote
on
it
at
some
point
soon,
even
today.
If
we
wanted
to,
but
I
don't
think
there's
any
rush.
A
Yeah,
I
guess
it
would
be
like
to
the
people
here
like
I'm,
not
sure
we
need
a
vote
or
whatever,
but
like
do
we
need
a
the
first
step
might
be
like
we
talked
about
it
at
the
tfc
meeting
and
generally
the
tse
thinks
it's
worth.
It
doesn't
think
it's
worth
it
and
then
you
know
next
week.
If
that
doesn't
sort
of
unlock
the
conversation,
we
could
then
decide
to
say
well
we're
going
to
overrule
the
objection
or
not
well.
B
I
think
I
think
what
you
can
say
is
you
know
we're
going
to
run
we're
going
to
we're
going
to
run
canary
in
the
gold
mine
and
look
at
the
results
and
and
if
there's
nothing,
if
there's
nothing
too
alarming
in
the
canary
in
the
gold
mine
results,
you
know
we'll
we'll
take
it
up
again
next
week
and
yeah
and
hopefully
hopefully
hopefully
by
then
you
know
you
can
include
a
comment.
B
If
you
want
that,
hopefully
by
then
conversation
will
happen
and
and
concerns
will
have
you
know,
the
concerns
have
been
raised
will
have
been
addressed,
but
I
don't
I
don't
see
how
they'd
be
addressed.
It
looks
you
know,
it
seems
to
me,
like
the
the
the
opposition
is
just
to
the
entire
concept
of
doing
it.
I
think,
but
I
could
be
wrong,
so
conversation
should
probably
continue,
but
I'm
going
to
go
run
canary
in
the
gold
mine
and
shut
up
right
now.
A
Okay,
so
I
think
that's
I
can
I
just
had
a
comment
that
we
talked
a
bit
about
with
it
and
the
next
steps,
and
then
we
can
leave
it
on
the
agenda
to
talk
about
it
next
week
sounds
good.
A
The
next
issue
is
rename
default
branch
for
master
domain.
So
I
think
I
don't
have
an
update.
I
haven't
had
time
to
actually
go
back
and
look
at
the
ones
that
I
opened
some
issues,
so
I
think
there's
probably
a
few
more
we
could
do,
but
that's
just
on
there
to
remind
us
to
continue
to
work
work
on
it.
I
don't
know
if
anybody
anybody
else
has
any
updates.
This.
A
A
If
not,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
migration
of
core
modules,
to
primordials
three
zero,
six,
nine
seven,
this
one,
I
think,
jarish
you
scheduled
or
led
the
the
meeting
to
discuss
it.
D
Yeah,
so
we
met
the
other
day
and
discussed
for
more
than
an
hour.
Essentially
we
were.
We
spent
good
amount
of
time
discussing
about
the
premise
of
the
primordials
and
various
possible
reasons
why
it
was
introduced
in
the
first
place,
and
then
we
also
looked
at
when
why
we
stopped
the
migration.
Potentially,
there
were
two
issues:
one
is
the
performance
and
other
one
is
poor.
D
Readability
that's
coming
out
of
the
migration,
because
it
was
not
looking
like
a
first-class
javascript
code
anymore
and
that
we
see
a
more
problem
because
new
contributors
can
be
more
hours
to
start
working
on
javascript.
One
of
the
main
motivation
for
new
contributors
is:
they
is
a
javascript
language.
That's
the
key
aspect
of
the
api
interface
and
then
we
we
plan
to
have
one
more
discussion
next
week
with
the
four
options
in
front
of
us
to
to
see
which
one
makes
more
sense
to
us.
D
A
Hey
well,
no
thanks,
thanks
to
reese
for
helping
to
move
that
forward
and
we'll
leave
it
on
the
agenda
to
discuss
once
there.
You
know,
get
the
update
next
time
after
the
next
meeting
takes
place.
A
Okay,
the
next
issue
is
number
one:
zero,
six,
three,
the
node.js
internet
bug
bounty
to
zero.
Invite.
I
hope
I
put
that
on
the
agenda.
You
know
a
few
of
us.
I
think
who'd
been
active
in
discussing
the
the
original
bug.
Bounty
you
know
were
sent
an
email,
basically
saying
hey,
do
you
want
to
participate
in
version
2.0?
A
A
A
B
B
A
B
Of
wonder,
I
kind
of
wonder
if,
if
tsc
is,
might
be
the
wrong
body
to
talk
about
it
and
we
might
wanna
pull
in,
like
specifically
the
security
like
the
security-minded
folks,
like
the
people
who
do
all
the
work
on
hacker
once
like
matteo
dan.
I
know
nikita
cares
about
security,
a
lot
and
a
few
other
people.
I
wonder
if
those
are
the
people
who
really
should
look
at
it
well,
matteo,
weighed
in
and
said
plus
one
so
yeah
anyway.
I'm
sorry,
I
don't
mean
to
shortly.
B
A
B
More
people
who
want
to
fix
stuff,
which
you'll
get
more
people
who
want
to
fix
stuff
if
they
get
if
they're
getting
paid,
but
that's
like
not
something
we
can
really
do,
because
we
can't
we
have
a
hard
time
paying
people,
but
also
just
that,
like
we'd,
have
to
we'd
have
to
sufficiently
trust
whoever
it
is
to
give
them
access
to
this
stuff.
B
You
know
it's
so
so
I
mean
we're
already
like
we're
already.
Probably
we
already
probably
have
too
many
people
with
access
to
the
hacker
one
information
in
my
opinion,
but
I
guess
we
could
have
fewer
more
fewer
people
but
bring
in
more
active
people.
A
A
B
A
I
I
A
A
A
A
B
In
that
case,
maybe
maybe
like
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
it
feels
like
we're
pulling
in
the
active
hacker.
One
people
will
be
the
right
move
like
I
damn
damn
davinas
would
be
a
good
person
I
think,
to
to
weigh
in
on
this
matteo
sweden
enough
talk,
vargas
has
weighed
in
he's
here.
I
don't
know
who
else
has
been
active
in
hacker
one
lately.
I
know
I'm
leaving
people
out
anyway.
A
Yeah,
so
I
know
dan's
away
for
a
number
of
weeks,
so
he
won't
be
able
to
comment
in
the
short
term,
but
I
you
know
I'd
say
we
leave
it
on
the
agenda
for
now
and
yeah.
If
people
do
have
thoughts,
if
they
could
participate
in
the
in
the
tracker
and
then
we'll
you
know
at
some
point,
we'll
need
to
figure
out
how
we
close
on
on
a
yeah.
Let's,
let's
say
yes
or
no.
I.
A
That
is
a
good
question,
we'll
put.
B
A
Okay,
so
let's
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
the
moderation
team
certification,
one
zero,
six,
two
rich.
I
believe
you
added
to
the
agenda.
B
Yeah-
and
it
looks
like
there
are
enough
upvotes
in
that
issue,
to
say
that
the
proposal
passes
unless
anybody
here
wants
to
raise
an
absolutely
last-minute
concern.
I
think
we're
going
to
take
everybody
in
there
as
re-certified
and
and
go
from
there.
B
And
I'm
going
to
close
the
issue
and
we'll
we'll
proceed
with
necessary,
onboarding
and
off-boarding,
and
thank
you.
C
A
A
So
I
think
the
next
thing
is
there'll
be
a
meeting
in
the
next
little
while
and
well,
like
you
said,
we'll
see
who
who's
there.
A
Okay,
the
last
thing
on
our
agenda
is
the
next
10
mini
summit.
Just
an
fyi
again,
that's
tomorrow,
so
just
want
to
make
sure
people
are
aware
and
if
they
can
make
it,
that
would
be
great.
A
G
Status
where,
where
we
are
in
the
premise,
transition
and
there's
one
open
pr
for
to
add
a
from
us
version
for
redline
that
needs
reviews.
So
if
folks
want
to
to
go
there,
it's
three
seven,
nine
four.
A
A
I
guess
the
next
one
that
we
have
somebody
here
in
the
the
champion
is
michael
on
v8
currency.