►
From YouTube: 2021-08-25-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
B
Okay,
so
welcome
to
the
technical
steering
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
meeting
for
august
25th
2021
we'll
follow
the
agenda,
which
was
tagged
in
the
issue,
which
was
number
one:
zero.
Seven
six
before
we
get
started,
does
anybody
have
any
announcements
they'd
like
to
share.
B
Okay,
the
first
thing
is
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates.
The
one
board
meeting
update
I
have
is
that
the
board
meeting
for
this
month
is
going
to
be
cancelled,
but
I
don't
think
there
was
anything
that
we
were
you
know
had
on
the
agenda
to
bring
up
or
anything
on
there
from
the
node
project.
So
nothing
on
that
fact.
I
don't
know
rich.
If
you
have
anything
on
the
cpc
side
of
things,
you
want
to
bring
people
up
to
date
on.
C
I
don't
think
so
and
if
something
comes
up,
I
will
send
it
to
the
list
or
open
an
issue
or
something.
But
I
have
not
come
to
this
meeting
prepared
to
with
the
my
head
wrapped
around
all
the
cpc
issues
I'll
get
on
that,
though,.
B
Yeah,
okay,
no,
so
thank
ben
thanks
for
stepping
into
that
role.
That's
great!
Okay!
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
issues
we
have
tagged
in
the
agenda.
The
first
one
is
doc:
anchor
link
parity
between
markdown
and
html
html
generated
docs
number
39304,
I'm
just
opening
that
up
anybody
who's
got
any
context
discussion
whatever
on
that
feel
free
to
jump
in,
as
I
quickly
look
to
see
where
we're
at
on
it.
D
I'm
not
sure
that
it's
the
tsp
world
to
you
know
discuss
that,
but
the
collaborator
was
asking
for
more
reviews,
so
I
thought
it
would
be
a
good
way
to
add
visibility.
So,
basically,
what
this
pr
is
doing
is
it's
changing
all
the
links
in
the
documentation,
the
markdown
documentation.
D
We
have
in
the
repo
to
be
compatible
with
the
github
default
link,
so
users
could
view
the
documentation
either
from
a
github
ui
or
the
web
ui,
and
the
cost
of
that,
of
course,
is
to
break
all
the
existing
links.
So
in
the
the
pr
it's
adding
a
hack
to
have
both
the
the
old
link
and
the
new
link
working.
D
B
B
Okay,
so
basically
it's
there's
something
in
there,
but,
like
the
hack
part,
is
not
comforting
in
terms
of
it
working
properly.
D
D
So
hopefully
it
it
won't
be
broken
because
there's
a
in
the
html
version,
there
will
be
both
the
the
github
link
and
the
old
node.js
style
link.
Not
sure,
if
that's
how
to
explain
it
in
a
clear
array.
E
F
A
A
D
B
D
Yeah,
maybe
there's
some
edge
cases,
or
I
don't
know
if
there's
a
way
to
to
you,
know
test
it
to
improve
the
confidence.
G
D
E
A
H
B
D
But
then
I
know
if
there's
a
historic
reason
to
use
the
node.js
link
style
or.
A
I
don't
think
so
I
don't.
I
don't
see
a
problem
with
using
the
new
links
there.
The
only
concern
I
would
have
is
is
you
know
just
breaking
the
existing
links,
so
if
those
are
those
are
being
inserted
in
fantastic,
there
is
a
concern
that
anybody
that
has
you
know.
A
I
B
I
C
Yeah
we
we,
I
I'm
pretty
sure
we
do
have
in
the
markdown
linter
anchor
link
hash
link,
whatever
checking
as
well
as
broken
link
checking.
You
can
confirm
that,
but
I'm
pretty
sure
antoine
do
you
know.
D
I
think
we
we
have
some
kind
of
validation,
but
we've
seen
broken
links
anyway,
so
some
sometimes
yeah
some
errors
slip
through.
So
it
checks.
D
Yeah
between
markdown
documents
to
check
if
the
file
exists.
C
Right
yeah,
but
won't
check
the
the
anchor
hash
thing,
whatever
it's
called.
B
I
Yes,
if
the
this
is
the
case
like
if
we
don't
have
the
foundation
at
the
moment,
so
perhaps
we
could
create
an
issue
for
that.
That
looks
like
something
that
could
be
like
a
good
first
issue
or
something
like
that,
because
it
does
not
require
deep
understanding
of
the
node.js
score
and
it
just
requires
working.
This
remark.
I
think.
B
B
Okay,
so
we
can
basically
close
out
with
the
ask
that
discussion
continues
in
the
github
repo.
D
Can
I
can
add
a
comment
thing:
there's
no,
no
one
object
to
it,
and
maybe
I
can
comment
and
remove
the
jsc
leverage.
B
B
I
know
that
we
discussed
this
in
a
past
tsc
meeting,
I'm
trying
to
remember
what
we
agreed
to
do.
B
20,
okay,
yeah,
so
I
I
mean
I
see
the
discussion
that's
gone
on,
we
did
discuss
in
a
previous
meeting
and
the
ask
was
that
you
know
some
tfc
members
jump
in
and
comment.
B
What
I
don't
see
is
any
response
from
the
you
know
the
person
who
was
objecting
you
know
basically
matteo
or
sorry,
not
mateo
reuben.
You
know
basically
asked
if
he
could
elaborate
on
his
minus
one,
but
I
don't
see
any
discussion
since
then.
B
B
B
They're
still
the
one,
the
one
person
who
has
got
a
minus
one,
I
don't
think
we've
got
any
tc
members.
Who've
said
you
know
jumped
in
and
said
I
see
a
couple
of
like
I
don't
have
a
strong
opinion.
Don't
have
much
of
an
opinion.
A
few
comments,
maybe
suggestions
for
changes,
but
nothing
that
says
hey
opposed
to
this
in
general.
B
J
B
C
H
B
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
I'll
volunteer
my
occult
to
create
issue
unless
anybody
else
wants
to
do
it
I'll
volunteer
to
create
an
issue.
To
basically
say
you
know,
we've
discussed
consensus
for
the
people
who
are
in
the
meetings
to
override
and
we'll
give
people
say
like
a
week
at
most
to
you
know,
raise
an
objection,
otherwise,
we'll
we'll
say
we
have
tsc
consensus
to
do
that.
B
Okay,
let's
move
on
to
sorry,
let
me
just
ignore
that
I
can
okay,
the
next
one
on
the
agenda
is
rename
default
branch
for
master
domain.
B
I
don't
know
if
anybody
has
anything
specific
to
bring
up
on
that.
I
know
I
haven't
gotten
back
to
some
of
the
the
repos
that
I'd
sort
of
commented
on
so
still
plan
to
do
that,
I'm
just
seeing
if
there's
any
more
discussion,
but
otherwise
it's
sort
of
a
longer
longer
term
thing
we've
been
working
on.
Did
we
lose
miles?
Yeah
yeah
miles
dropped
off
had
to
drop
off.
B
C
Hang
on
a
second,
let
me
see
what
he
posted.
He
said.
I
am
cheering
he's
he's
in
a
diagnostic
meeting,
so
he
can't
make
it
he's
requesting
reuben
or
tobias
or
antoine
or
targus,
to
michael
zlazo,
to
share
the
essence
of
of
their
discussion
so
of
those
four
people.
I
think
we
only
have
antoine.
So
I
don't
know
if
antoine
wants
to
share
the
essence
of
the
discussion
or
not.
D
So
I
missed
a
bit
a
big
chunk
of
the
meeting,
but
the
the
conclusion
was
we
probably
that,
yes,
you
will
probably
have
to
vote
at
some
point,
because
there
is
no
no
consensus
emerging
so
far
and
we,
I
think
we
wanted
to
define
different
possibilities
for
the
tsc
to
vote
so
either
by
by
meeting
or
recommending,
but
this
hasn't
happened
so
far.
C
B
If
not,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
the
node.js
internet,
bugbounty
2.0,
that
one
is,
is
basically
the
follow-on
to
you
know
we,
the
funding
we
currently
get
for
our
existing
bug.
Bounty
was
through
the
earlier
version
of
this
program.
B
This
is
the
follow-on
that
has
you
know,
a
few
different
changes
and
what
we
need
is
an
answer
in
terms
of
whether
we'd
like
to
participate
as
a
project.
I
did
post
at
the
bottom
of
that
you
know
at
node.jstsc.
B
Are
there
any
objections
to
people
enrolling?
You
know.
Looking
at
the
issue
itself,
I
see
three
ts.
Tsc
members,
including
myself,
saying
that
you
know
I
see
three
saying
make
sense.
One
person
is
neutral,
no
objections
and
we've
had
that.
You
know
at
node.jstsc,
men
mentioned
open
for
two
weeks
asking
for
objections
and
we
don't
have
any
so
I'm
thinking
we,
you
know
the
I'm
thinking
we
as
a
group
could
figure
out
like
do.
We
think
we've
got
where
we've
got
consensus
and
it's
okay
for
us
to
respond
yes,
or
should
we.
C
I
think
two
weeks
and
and
several
mentions
at
tsc
meetings
constitute
acceptable
consensus.
I
don't,
I
don't
think
we
have
to
do.
I
think
that's
plenty
of
effort
to
to
get
people
to
engage
on
the
on
the
topic.
So
so,
if
somebody
here
has
an
objection
to
this
like
now
is
the
time
to
say
it.
E
Sorry
me
name
this
because
it's
it's,
it
was
not
clear
the
the
are
we
still
on
a
promise.
They
probably
I
have
sorry
we're.
E
I
from
my
point
of
view.
It's
I'm
transparent.
I
open
the
issue,
I'm
just
I
don't.
You
know.
I
am
yeah.
C
E
C
E
No
yeah,
I
am,
I
am
mentioning
the
facts.
I
think
we
should
keep
doing
bounties,
but
it
might
be
something
that
we
want
to
consider
specifically
because
giving
bounties
create
a
lot
of
copycats
low
quality
reports
come
in
low
quality
reports
coming
in
so
and
people
and
just
wrong
attitude.
From
from
the
hackers
on
like.
I
have
some
specific
comments
that
I.
E
You
know
they
are,
they
are
those
are
contributions
done
only
for
the
money
and
it's
they
are
a
gay
completely
against
the
spirit
of
of
node.js.
C
Like
like
increase
the
aggravation
factor
of
managing
the
hacker
one
where
it's
just
like
you
know,
hey
here's,
some
here's
some
tool.
I
used.
I
don't
understand
the
actual
bug
report,
but
it
looks
like
you're
vulnerable.
I
don't
think
we're
vulnerable.
This
doesn't
look
right
because
a
b
and
c
can
you
explain
why
you
think
we're
vulnerable,
and
the
next
comment
is:
can
I
get
a.
E
Yeah,
essentially
so
that's
you
classified
it
very
well
rich.
So
that
is
my.
On
the
other
hand,
I
would
I
recognize
the
fact
that
being
able
to
give
bounties
to
certain
problems,
it's
worthwhile,
so
yeah,
I'm.
You
know.
B
You
know
I've
been
asking
like:
is
this
causing
us
more
releases
more
whatever,
but
like
I?
If
we,
if
we
the
question,
if
we
still
think
we
should
do
it,
this
is
we
should
say
yes,
but,
and
I
don't,
I
hear
people
sharing
some
of
my
same
concerns,
but
not
saying
we
should
basically
jump
at
this
point.
C
I
don't
think
jumping
at
this
point
makes
sense,
because
we
need
to
have
a
really
really
like
I,
you
know
we
should
we
all
things
being
equal.
We
should
do
everything
we
can
to
to
to
get
as
many
security
issues
reported
to
us
in
a
timely
fashion
as
possible.
We
should
be
doing
everything
we
can
to
make
note
as
secure
as
possible
and
so
until
like
wha,
while
the
bounties
have
increased
low
quality
reports
that
are
aggravating
and
consume
our
time
a
bit.
C
It's
probably
also
produced
some
things
that
have
been
very
valuable
and
the
the
aggravation
and
wasting
of
time
is
not
yet
so
out
of
control
that
it's
like.
We
have
to
stop
giving
bounties
now
we're
not
at
that,
and
so
therefore,
given
given
those
two
things,
I
think
we
should
err
on
the
side
of
doing
everything
we
can
to
be
as
secure
as
possible
and
continue
giving
bounties
for
the
next.
You
know
period
and
then
evaluate
again
at
that.
Time
is
what
I
think
yeah
and.
C
B
And
that
that's
again,
I
think
I'm
in
your
same
mindset
like
you
know
we
should
be
doing
everything
we
can.
It
doesn't
sound
like
this.
Is
it's
not
optimal,
but
we
should
keep
going
so
it
sounds
like
everybody's
I've.
I
haven't
heard
anybody
say
anything
that
changes
the
yeah
we're
in
consensus.
We
should
say
yes,
let's
move
forward,
we
may
want
to
discuss
whether
we
want
to
do
this
forever
or
how
we
do
it,
but
that's
a
totally
separate
discussion
as.
C
As
our
as
as
our
resident
security
person,
I
wouldn't
mind
hearing
nikita's
opinion,
even
if
it's
just
yes
no
or
I
don't
have
an
opinion,
I.
B
B
Okay,
so
the
next
one
is
to
be
or
not
to
be
in
core
one
zero,
four
one
I
know
danielle
had
scheduled
one
meeting
where
we
had
a
discussion
on
that.
I
think
robert
can.
J
Yeah
in
the
last
meeting
we
agreed
that
danielle
would
open
a
discussion
where
we
could
start.
You
know
lining
up
the
pros
and
cons
and
different
versions
of
that.
Unfortunately,
I
missed
her
comment
that
she's
done
that,
so
I
haven't
filled
in
the
things
I
had
and
it
seems
nobody
else
have
either.
J
So
I
guess
I
would
use
this
opportunity
to
remind
everyone
to
please
go
to
that
discussion
and
start
filling
it
in,
and
I
see
rich
seems
to
have
a
lot
of
fun
with
this,
but
yeah
apologies
there,
and
hopefully
we
can
have
some
more
progress
on
that
until
next
week.
B
Okay,
that
takes
us
to
the
strategic
initiatives.
We
still
have
a
few
minutes,
so,
let's
jump
over
to
that.
D
So
naturally,
the
redline
from
this
api
is
pr
is
coming
along.
If
folks
want
to
give
it
some
reviews,
it
would
be
great
but
yeah.
No,
no,
no.
The
news.
B
B
B
I
guess
not
so
thanks
for
everybody's
time
and
for
everybody
watching
sorry,
we
didn't
get
the
live
stream
going
because
it
conflicted
with
one
of
the
other
working
group
meetings,
but
hopefully
watching
it
afterwards
works
out
for
you.
So
talk
to
everybody
later
bye.