►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/177
Bryan Hughes - https://github.com/nebrius (TSC)
Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
Rod Vagg - https://github.com/rvagg (TSC)
James Snell - https://github.com/jasnell (TSC)
Michael Dawson - https://github.com/mhdawson (TSC)
Anna Henningsen - https://github.com/addaleax (observer/CTC)
Josh Gavant - https://github.com/joshgav (observer/Microsoft)
William Kapke - https://github.com/williamkapke (observer)
Tracy Hinds - https://github.com/hackygolucky (observer/NF)
Jenn Turner - https://github.com/jennwrites (observer/NF)
Mikeal Rogers - https://github.com/mikeal (observer/NF)
B
B
We
we
used
continue
to
discuss
the
nvm
issue,
which
is
number
6,
50
and
I
6
that's
been
delegated
to
a
version
management
discussion
group
and
they
are
defining
strategy
for
us
and
we'll
have
a
hopefully
have
a
little
bit
an
update
on
that.
This
week
we
authorized
utilization
of
travel
fund
for
for
collaborators
and
tsc
and
CDC
members
who
could
come
to
note
interactive
and
we
had
a
bunch
of
people
that
we
authorized
travel
for.
B
We
ended
up
closing
that
one
in
for
lack
of
having
a
justification,
even
though
we
can
cut
probably
come
up
with
some
now
we'll
use
make
actually
making
a
case
that
really
wants
to
do
it
that,
as
outlining
your
clear
case
for
doing
it
so
for
now
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
make
sure
that
the
groups
operate
according
to
you
how
they
should
and
if
we
need
to
fold
them
in
the
future,
then
somebody
can
make
a
case
for
that
and
we'll
do
that.
But
for
now
I
can
continue
with
them
separate.
B
We
looked
at
a
defining
note
core
issue.
Number
144
I
present
that
the
to
the
board
a
couple
of
weeks
ago
and
and
they're
happy
with
that,
and
so
we're
we're
ready
to
to
close
that
one
I
just
haven't
done
the
final
pieces
and
we
skipped
over
the
revised
membership
rules.
The
minute
James
was
proposing
okay,
so
getting
into
the
meeting.
B
Today
we
have
a
request
to
author:
attract
authorized
travel
funds
for
Muhammad
banir
henningsen
to
go
to
tc39
his
issue
number
176
in
the
tsc
repo
man
has
been
invited
to
attend
teeth
of
the
tc39
meeting
in
January
and
he's
looking
for
travel
fund
authorization
up
to
three
thousand
dollars
to
get
from
Europe
to
wherever
it
is
in
the
US.
This
is
happening
so.
E
B
B
A
E
C
Also
say
that,
like
the
more
kind
of
purely
community
representation
that
we
have
like
not
from
companies,
it
really
helps
as
well
yeah.
We
do
have
more
people
kind
of
showing
up
on
a
regular
basis,
but
they're
also
representing
large
companies.
So
this
is
just
generally
kind
of
good.
I'll.
Also
say
that
you
know
like
one
of
the
reasons
why
they
hand
out.
C
These
invites
is
that
it
there's
not
a
lot
of
people
that
can
really
like
effective
in
the
room,
and
so
when
people
show
an
interest
and
have
like
a
you
know,
good
expertise
that
they
don't
have
yet
in
there
they
tend
to
send
out
an
invite,
get
them
in.
You
know
as
first
just
as
a
guest
and
then
see
kind
of
how
well
it
goes,
and
then
you
know
trying
to
get
them
there
on
a
more
permanent
basis,
if
they're
really
effective
so
because
they're
just
I
mean
they're,
really
starved
for
people
there.
B
D
C
Also
say
that
this
this
gets
a
little
bit
easier
than
more
people
that
we
have
in
the
room
from
node
like
I,
think
that
Bradley
was
probably
burning
out
being
the
only
person
kind
of
holding
it
down,
and
it's
just
a
lot
easier.
When
you
have
other
people
there
that
can
also
kind
of
backup
what
you're
saying
it
helped
out.
B
So
the
security
working
group
will
have
a
relatively
broad
/
spammed,
the
remit
of
things
to
do
not
just
the
note
security
project
work,
but
it
won't
be
responsible
for
handling
the
private
security
staff,
that's
still
in
the
domain
of
the
CTC,
so
this
is
going
to
be
a
policy
and
an
ecosystem
group
William.
What's
the
process
here
for
getting
this
ratified?
Oh
so.
F
I
put
this
on
the
agenda
because
I
want
to
I
want
to
get
some
clarity
and
exactly
what
we're
trying
to
achieve,
because
what
I'm
underpinning
so
far
is
that
the
board
has
decided
that
the
note
security
project
is
is
now
part
of
the
foundation.
That's
been
a
real
thing,
that's
happened,
and
so
it's
kind
of
being
turned
over
now
to
the
technical
side
and
the
way
I
look
at
in
a
way.
I
hear
this.
F
That
sounds
like
a
new
top-level
project
to
me
and
if
it's
not,
then
somehow
this
other
project
that's
brought
in
is
now
with
merging
into
the
core
top
level
project
or
something
so
that's
really
kind
of
this
hazy
area.
But
if
it
is
a
new
top-level
project,
that
means
it
needs
a
technical
committee.
Just
like
core
has
the
technical
committee.
F
It
could
fall
under
the
tsc,
I
suppose,
but
yeah
we
needs
to
be
discussed
now.
It
seems
almost
separate
that
there's
also
the
security
working
group,
Cyber
Club
related
that
were
all
you
know,
discussing
about
farming
and
there's
a
lot
of
momentum
running
forward
talking
about
this
working
group,
what
it
does
and
its
roles
and
responsibilities-
and
it
almost
seems
to
me
like
this.
This
note
security
project
is
kind
of
being
forgotten
in
that
push
forward,
that
that's
kind
of
where
this
all
started
from.
So
there's
no
I
think
method.
A
lot.
G
F
G
Least,
as
a
bridge
into
that
work
group,
because
I
know,
when
you
know
in
the
discussion
at
the
collaborator
summit,
you
know
we
didn't
have
anybody
in
the
room
who
could
speak
to
that.
So
we
didn't
really
focus
on
that
and
Sam
has
reached
out
to
Adam
to
start
the
engagement
but
I
think
what
he
needs
is
you
know
either
whether
it's
Michael
or
rod
or
whoever
it's
been
who's
had
the
discussions
and
negotiations
with
him
so
far,
he
needs
to
get
together
with
them
to
really
understand
what
we've
already
agreed
not
agreed.
C
The
people
use
for
understanding
those
disclosures
now
there's
some
technical
limitations
to
how
we
have
to
do
that
because
of
this
unified
entry
point
so
I
think
that
all
of
us
sort
of
agreed
to
that
there
still
needs
to
be
a
separate
group.
That
is
the
node
core
security
group
that
that's
notes,
Corp
own
abilities,
I.
Think
there's
also
somewhat
broad
agreement
that
we
don't
want
to
disclose
to
this
broader
group.
That's
defending
all
the
vulnerabilities
for
the
entire
ecosystem,
all
of
these
node
core
vulnerabilities
early
on
as
well.
C
It
would
actually
be
ideal
if
we
could
keep
those
just
in
that
smaller
group,
so
because
of
that
yeah,
because
of
because
of
that
technical
limitation.
I
think
that
the
this
funnel
this
entry
point
with
like
security
at
nodejs
org
and
this
sort
of
like
unified
disclosure
and
point
it
has
to
be
managed
by
the
core
group
just
that
they
can
say.
Is
this
a
core
vulnerability
or
not?
And
then,
if
it's
not
quickly
handed
over
to
the
group,
that's
vetting
the
ecosystem,
stuff.
C
The
ecosystem,
vulnerability
bidding
does
need
to
be
a
separate
group,
though,
because
we
want
to
get
broader
participation
that
are
responsible
for
more
than
just
the
core
stuff
and
honestly,
I.
Think
that
you
know
people
like
Adam
and
and
other
people
are
going
to
be
really
involved
in
who
who
who
is
participating
in
this
in
this
broader
group
and
the
core
technical,
the
ctc
essentially
really
needs
to
manage,
who
is
vetting,
core
vulnerabilities
and
core
security.
C
B
The
way
that
I
I
had
envisaged
this
working
out
was
that
this,
this
new
group
wouldn't
necessarily
be
a
working
group
immediately.
But
it
would
be
more
like
a
discussion
group
to
figure
out
how
to
proceed
so
that
the
first
task
of
this
group
is
to
figure
out
what
it.
What
it's
you
know,
scope
of
responsibility,
what
it's,
what
its
responsibilities
are,
what
its
tasks
are
and
how
to
ease
in
the
note
security
project
into
the
work
we
do
in
the
node.js
org.
C
B
No
I
think
one
of
the
chance
two
million
like
they're,
cutting
back
wanting
more
context,
and
so
the
context
you've
just
provided
is
important
there.
My
could
be
you've
been
a
connection
point
between
no
security
project
in
the
foundation,
so
giving
them
that
context
about
what
has
been
promised.
What
has
been
said,
it's
very
helpful,
but
I
think
it's
simply
organizing
a
meeting
and
getting
adam
involved
in
that
is
gonna.
You
know
solves
pretty
much
illness
that.
G
Is
underway,
I
think
you
know
Sam
scheduling
the
meeting
for
next
week.
He's
got
to
me
the
e-mails
back
and
forth
with
with
with
Adam,
and
you
know,
Adams
giving
him
his
his
perspective
of
what's
coming
in,
but
I
I
still
think
that
maybe
Michael,
if
you
could
catch
up
with
Sam
for,
like
you,
know,
a
short
conversation
that
would
help
him
out
in
terms
of
feeling
like
he
has
whatever
context
there
is
to
have
right
sure.
G
B
G
B
B
G
Yeah,
I
think
that
you
know
they'll
probably
discuss
it.
We
discussed
that
the
first
meeting,
what
makes
sense
if
the
proposal
was
like
to
do
it
every
every,
at
least
to
start
with
every
other
week,
because
more
frequent
and
then
tail
off
to
some
other
frequency,
which
would
be
you
know
once
a
month
or
whatever
makes
sense,
but
yeah
I,
depending
on
who
shows
up
you're
right,
it
could
just
be
maybe
will
be
a
whole
new
time
chosen.
B
B
The
main
answer,
the
main
answer
you
can
give
to
him
is
that
Michael
has
all
the
context
with
regard
to
well.
Michael
and
Adam
have
the
context
with
regard
to
Ned
security
project
and
and
I
was
responsible
for
everything
else
or
proposing
everything
else.
So
I'm
not
sure
how
much
else
I
can
provide
other
than
what
I've
done
leak
on
the
repo
so
far,
yeah.
G
I
think
I
mostly
pointed
at
Michael,
is
the
one
who
probably
had
the
most
context
in
terms
of
foundation,
discussions
and
agreements
in
whatever
so
well
yeah
having
come
out
of
this.
All
them
know
that
we
talked
about
it
and
confirm
that
you
know
you
two,
as
you
just
outlined,
to
the
right
people
to
follow
up
with,
and
also
hopefully
you're
going
to
try
and
make
the
meeting
too.
G
B
So
moving
along
and
please
stop
me
if
you've
got
anything
to
hold
that
up,
but
the
next
one
is,
if
you
number
174,
which
is
copyright
and
restoring
the
giant
copyright
headers,
so
I
made
a
proposal
in
that
issue
about
getting
it
getting
the
having
a
briefing
for
the
CTC
and
so
that
they
can
be
comfortable
with
this
and
but
Mike
we've
responded
there.
I
haven't
had
time
to
read
yours
since
I've
got
up,
so
maybe
you
can
fill
us
in
on
current
status
of
that.
C
We,
like,
I
I'm
just
trying
to
understand
why
we
are
either
ignoring
the
legal
advice
of
the
people
that
we
pay
for
legal
advice
or
otherwise
requiring
that
they
basically
educate
every
contributor
on
the
law.
Before
we
take
this
change
like
we,
we
continually
delegate
technical
tasks
to
people
with
that
technical
expertise
and
I.
Don't
know
why
we
can't
delegate
this
legal
expertise
to
our
own
layers
that
we
pay,
because.
B
B
I
I
can
understand
your
frustration
here,
given
that
you've
done
mostly
interacting
on
the
legal
side
of
this,
but
this
this
is
totally
a
totally
new
experience
for
most
people
here
to
have
legal
advice,
which
is
which
we
are
supposed
to
trust,
because
in
the
past
we've
had
legal
advice
from
lots
of
third
parties
Ryan
juggle,
and
even
that
thread
there's
more
legal
advice
being
thrown
in.
So
it's
a
totally
new
experience
of
habit
of
saying
here's
a
is
a
legal
party
that
is
on
our
side
that
we
should
trust
so
well,
that's
what
we.
C
Like
we,
we
also
have
to
set
expectations
here
that
we,
we
can't
get
binding
legal
advice
in
public
like
we
that's
not.
We
can't
like,
like
your
conversation
with
your
lawyer,
has
to
needs
to
be
a
private
conversation
like
so
there's
some
limitations
in
what
we
can
kind
of
post
publicly
about
this
kind
of
stuff
there
there
a
workaround,
but
they
they
kind
of
take
quite
a
bit
longer
and
in
fact
we
have
one
available
right
like
so.
C
We
we
asked
for
legal
advice
on
which
licenses
to
use
and
how
to
properly
to
note
which
license
that
we
have,
and
the
board
produced
a
document
that
our
lawyers
signed
off
on
that
is,
that
is
now
public,
but
we
don't.
But,
but
for
things
like
this,
that
are,
you
know
very
specific
to
you
know
us
violating
the
terms
of
the
license
than
being
asked
relatively
politely
to
add
it
back.
C
That
kind
of,
like
the
kind
of
legal
advice
that
we
get
about,
that
needs
to
remain
private,
which
is
one
of
the
kind
of
more
difficult
and
frustrating
bits
about
this.
Also,
one
thing
that
I'll
point
out
as
well
is
that
the
tsc
has
a
lot
of
autonomy,
but
they
don't
have
autonomy
over
legal
matters
like
that.
C
It's
spelled
out
pretty
clearly
in
the
Charter
that
the
foundation
and
the
board
are
still
responsible
for
the
legal
side
of
things,
and
that
makes
sense
because
the
board
is
actually
responsible
legally
for
the
project
and
any
legal
risk
that
the
contributors
decide
to
take
on
the
board
is
actually
ultimately
responsible
for
so
yeah.
That's,
that's
all
I
related
sit.
H
Yeah
here
yeah
it
for
me,
I
mean
it
is
definitely
my
it's
just
something
we
just.
We
have
to
do
for
me.
It's
just
a
matter
of
the
details,
exactly
which
files
need
to
be
touched
and
exactly
house
and
I
can
update
PR
according
link.
I
take
the
conversation
we
had
yesterday,
I'm
not
on
the
TTC
call
it
can.
I
clarify
things.
It
is
sometimes
the
opportunity
to
actually
get
that
PR
update,
which
I'll
be
doing
by
tomorrow.
H
B
Okay,
so
in
the
process
of
landing
like
given
that
what
Michaels
saying
about
how
we
have
to
respect
the
legal
input,
it's
important
for
us
to
not
confuse
questions
with
people
holding
up.
So,
let's
not
you
know
Ram
it
through,
but
actually
answer
questions
and
concerns
because
otherwise
it's
gonna-
it's
not
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
build,
much
trust
if
we,
if
we
just
ignore
people's
concerns,
because
there
are
legitimate
questions,
you
know,
I
I
have
similar
questions
that
are
living
as
tandem.
Getting
just
getting
reasonable
answers
is
issues.
It
was
a
reasonable
thing.
H
C
C
The
idea
of
this
PR
by
the
way,
thank
you
so
file
the
PR
and
then
send
rod
will
send
a
request
to
the
board
to
send
it
to
the
legal
committee
and
the
legal
Canadians
figure
out
who
we
need
to
get
input
from,
because
it
may
actually
be
that
we
need
input
from
or
sign
off
from
a
couple
like
primary
contributors,
some
of
those
files
and
things
like
in
addition
to
join
though
so
we
need
to
like,
allow
them
to
kind
of
that.
That.
H
So
I
will
be
providing
the
updated
PR
tomorrow
that
restores
the
original
headers
best
to
the
files
that
are
still
existing
from
the
original
modification
and
then
a
second
PR
that
reduces
those
letters
down
to
the
smaller
version
and
then
go
from
there
before
we
can
land
either
PR
will
have
to
get
the
legal
committee
to
review
it
and
say:
okay,
yeah.
That
looks
good
that
meets
the
requirement
or
not.
E
B
On
issue
number
147,
which
was
travel
fund,
this
is
on
the
agenda
simply
because
I
don't
believe
we
followed
up
with
the
people
that
we
authorized.
Funding
for
and
Michael
I
wanted
to
get
a
verification
of
the
process
here.
Do
we
just
need
to
provide
you
with
a
list
of
people
that
we
authorized
and
then
point
them
to
you?
Yeah.
C
So
there's
there's
a
google
doc
that
I
sent
around
in
a
prior
one
of
these
threads
that
essentially
it's
just
like
a
standard
expense
reimbursement,
Google
Doc,
like
pulled
off
the
internet,
but
they
just
need
to
send
that
to
AP
at
linux,
foundation,
org
and
CC
me
on
it
right,
yep
and
well.
We
noted
this
process
a
couple
other
places
as
well.
B
C
I
mean
the
google
doc
is
literally
a
template,
it's
just
like
a
standard
expense
framework
for
meeeee
and
then
the
reason
that
you
have
to
CC
me
on
just
because
I
have
to
tell
the
AP
people
that,
yes,
this
is
in
the
pre-big
bit,
so
it
can't
really
be
abused
by
some
Rando,
because
I
would
go
who
the
hell
is.
This
person
well.
B
B
J
C
Yeah,
so
if
you
send
an
invoice,
they
may
come
back
and
say:
where
is
the
contract
agreement
with
this
vendor?
Oh
ok,
yeah!
So
it's
it's
specific
to
being
a
reimbursement
socially
like
that's!
That's
why
we
don't,
and
then
we
won't
ask
for
things
like
that.
Basically
also,
if
it's
a
stipend,
we
handle
it
a
little
bit
differently,
but
this
these
aren't
stipend.
So
that's
like.
E
Somewhat
related
William
had
brought
this
up
in
one
of
the
issues
somewhere
about
how
we
have
the
number
tremolo.
It
actually
has
some
restrictions
on
who
were
allowed
to
give
it
to.
Is
that
something
we
wanted
to
discuss
here,
or
should
we
table
that
till
the
future
meeting?
Sorry,
what
was
the
question?
So
we
have
a
member
travel
fund
documents
already
it's
in
the
tsc
repo.
E
It's
just
remember:
dash
travel,
best,
run,
md
and
there's
some
restrictions
placed
on
who
can
apply
for
this,
and
one
of
the
restrictions
is
actually
pretty
heavy
and
it's
implied
that
we
may
not
actually
have
been
following
that
properly
hello
moving.
Do
you
want
to
add
to
that
in
I
mean
I
can
also
talk
to
it
as
well.
I.
F
Mean
you
kind
of
just
said
it
yeah,
the
document.
Is
there
it's
in
the
board
minutes
that
that
document
was
approved
and
it
has
those
restrictions
which
really
hadn't
been
called
out
and
I.
Don't
really
think
we
want
to
keep
those
restrictions
because
that
that's
really
not
how
we've
been
using
it.
It
says
that
you
must
be
going
to
speak
at
a
conference
and
it
must
be
for
the
approved,
slides
that
are
listed
there.
That's.
C
C
C
Those
restrictions
were
placed
on
the
fund
because
the
initial
vision
of
the
fund
was
that
we
would
end
up
sending
people
to
Rin
conferences
to
talk
about
the
foundation
and
because
that
opens
up
so
many
people
being
able
to
dis
request
money
from
us.
We
wanted
to
put
a
couple
restrictions
on
it
in
order
to
manage
it.
That's
not
how
we're
using
it
anymore,
so
we
should
just
change
the
process
to
something:
that's
that's
more.
How
you're,
using
it
now
yeah.
F
C
B
C
The
one
thing
one
thing
that
should
concern
us
that
we
really
need
to
think
on.
We
reduce
the
allocation
quite
a
bit
this
year
for
2017,
because
we
weren't
using
it
as
much
and
because
we
wanted
to
essentially
just
come
back
to
the
board
to
refresh
it
if
we
run
out
of
it.
So
we're
just
gonna
need
to
keep
an
eye
on
how
much
gets
spent
and
then
have
the
tsc
request
more
money
from
the
board
when
its
nearing
running
out
should.
C
Yes,
yes,
that
would
be
ideal.
I
mean
we're
going
to
keep
track
of
it
at
a
finance
level
and
not
in
finance,
but
like
that's
a
month
or
two
after
the
expenses
go
through.
We
actually
kind
of
like
tally.
All
of
that
up,
so
you
know
like
like,
for
instance,
Anna's
asking
for
up
to
three
thousand,
but
she's,
probably
you
know
she's
going
to
file
expense
reimbursements
for
her
flight
and
hotel,
and
it
may
come
in
under
that.
So
you
know
I
would
just
keep
track
of
like
oh
we've
approved
3000.
C
B
Week
when
we
could
make
a
part
of
our
process
where
we
could
so
we
can
have
it
like
a
spreadsheet
and
then
so.
Whenever
somebody
gets
approved
for
travel
funds,
we
say
this
is
how
you
submit
them
and
as
part
of
that
process,
you've
got
to
go
to
this
google
spreadsheet
and
all
this
google
form
and
fill
it
in
and
it'll
go
on
to
a
spreadsheet.
So.
C
B
J
B
E
E
B
Weeks
then
skipper
responsibility.
You
should
number
144.
This
is
a
recurring
one.
As
I
said
in
the
issue
for
this
meeting,
that's
pretty
much
done.
I
just
haven't
finished
the
last
pieces
of
it.
We
had
brought
approval
well,
I'm,
actually
doing
it.
We
didn't
go
seeking
approval,
we
went
seeking
input
and
to
get
their
feedback
and
I
without
positive,
and
the
only
thing
that
was
that
they
thought
was
missing
was
the
possibility
of
a
project
coming
in
having
been
instigated
by
the
board,
rather
than
us
instigating
bringing
a
project
in.
B
So
we
that's
the
only
thing,
that's
missing
from
there
that
we
probably
want
to
put
in
so
I'll
get
that
done.
Just
get
some
feedback
on
that
and
then
we'll
get
it
merged,
and
then
we're
done.
We
can
move
on
to
the
next
thing,
which
is
defining
out
how
our
membership
works
out
in
which
should
flow
from
the
changes
we've
made
here.
It
should
be
fairly
obvious.
How
did
you
membership
from
there,
because
I
think
we've
defined
quite
a
lot
in
those
changes.
B
B
B
H
B
And,
lastly,
version
management,
so
this
is
under
the
issue
1
issue
96,
which
was
looking
at
bringing
in
Fatima
to
the
foundation.
We
punted
strategy,
discussion
off
to
a
new
discussion
group
and
were
requesting
that
they
tell
us
right
recommend
to
us
how
to
proceed
with
this
whole
area.
Is
there
anyone
here
that
can
give
us
a
quick
summary
of
the
the
there
was
a
meeting
I
think
in
person
meeting
at
noni
directive,
yeah.
I
I
Essentially,
the
conclusion
was
that
that
group
should
focus
first
on
conventions
and
standards
for
the
paths
and
mechanisms
used
by
node
by
default,
and
if
and
when
those
kinds
of
things
are
ironed
out,
then
we
could
potentially
choose
a
specific
version
manager
to
bring
in,
but
we
didn't
want
to
bring
in
anything
that
wasn't
gonna
be
officially
supported
or
officially
in
line
a.
There
was
a
lot
of
clarification
there.
Actually
Michael
can
kind
of
talk
to
it
that
we
can't.
We
can
only
take
in
projects
that
are
aligned
and
supported
by
our
group.
I
B
Okay,
that's
actually
like
those
nights
down
the
bottom
there,
the
process
of
deciding
how
to
move
forward
that
it
should
be.
We
can't
bring
them
all
in,
so
we
probably
should
just
bring
one
in
if
we
bring
one
at
all,
but
then
deciding
what
to
bring
in
means
deciding
what
we
want.
So
that's
the
first
tip.
I
Probably
the
biggest
thing
that
we
all
realized
in
that
conversation
was,
we
can't
bring
them
all
in
and
I
jordans,
not
on
the
call,
but
I
think
that
was
his
understanding
and
kind
of
how
we
trade
things
a
year
ago
that
that
almost
anything
could
come
in
and
we
would
give
it
at
home,
but
that's
changed
and
it's.
If
you
want
to
be
at
an
umbrella
foundation,
then
the
JavaScript
foundation
is
is
more
suited
for
that.
A
B
B
B
B
So
the
just
while
we're
doing
that
next
meeting
we've
agreed
on
December
29,
there
is
a
calendar
that
we
will
reiterate
that
William
has
been
maintaining,
so
you
can
actually
click
on
the
link
in
the
document
and
it
will
bring
in
events
that
are
for
meetings
that
are
happening
all
across
the
org,
and
you
can
add
it
to
your
own
calendar.
You
just
have
to
find
the
link
down
the
bottom
right.
When
you
add
it
to
your
own
calendar
is.