►
From YouTube: 2020-10-29-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
october
29th
2020
we'll
follow
our
standard
agenda,
which
was
as
outlined
in
issue
942
in
the
tse
repository
just
suck,
I'm
just
promoting
miles
who's
just
joined
okay.
So,
first
of
all,
does
anybody
have
any
announcements
they'd
like
to
share.
B
I
have
one
we
have
a
new
repo
in
our
organization
called
web
ideal-n-api,
the
purpose
of
which
is
to
translate
web
idl
files
into
an
api
calls
that
will
create
on
the
javascript
side
the
interfaces
that
are
described
in
the
idl
file
and
will
allow
add-on
maintainers
to
implement
those
interfaces
on
the
native
side.
It's
still
very
early
on
and
in
heavy
development,
no
releases.
Yet
so
that's
the
announcement.
A
Okay
thanks,
I
guess
I'll
add
in
that
we
should.
We
should
announce
that
14.x
went
lts
this
week,
thanks
to
everybody
who
made
all
did
all
that
work
miles.
You
have
an
announcement.
C
A
If
not
we'll
go
to
cpc
and
board
meeting
updates-
mary's,
not
here
today,
as
our
cpc
rep,
but
from
the
board
perspective,
there
is
a
board
meeting
this
week,
there's
nothing
new
that
I
have
to
bring
up
with
them.
But
if
there
is
something
you
have
on
in
your
mind,
please
let
me
know
in
advance,
and
I
can
do
that
in
terms
of
the
cpc
work.
A
So,
moving
on
to
the
issues
which
were
tagged
for
the
agenda,
the
first
one
is
348.95,
which
is
adding
diagnostic
channel
it's
on
the
tse
agenda,
because
it's
adding
a
new
name
space,
and
so
we
require.
A
I
think
it's
it's
approval
from
the
tse
to
to
do
that
cord
mentioned
that
he
does
know
own
the
namespace
in
npm,
so
there's
no
chance
of
collision
and
really
it's
just
waiting
on
two
tsc
members.
A
So
I
guess
the
question
I
had
to
the
team
here
is
there?
Is
there
any
objections
with
that
landing
and
in
particular
you
know
adding
that
that
particular
name
space.
A
A
I
think
we
clarified
before
15
that
it
didn't
you
know
we
could.
We
could
do
this
in
15.1
or
two
or
something
like
this,
but
we
do
need
that
the
sign
off
from
at
least
two
tsc
members
yeah.
It
looks
like
I
think
james.
There
was
something
about
james
that
approved,
but
it
didn't
quite
count
because
it
was
unintended
and
couldn't
be
removed
or
something
but.
A
A
Okay,
so
I
guess
what
you
know
I
was
going
to
go
and
approve
tsc
wise
if
there
weren't
any
objections
or
concerns
from
this
group.
If
somebody
else
could
go
ahead
and
do
that
as
well,
I
think
that
would
be
great,
because
then
we
could
unlock
it
and
get
it
to
land.
A
Okay,
anything
else
people
want
to
discuss
here
on
that
one
before
we
move
on.
A
I
think
this
actually
is
in
a
similar
vein
in
that
it's
adding
some
top
level
pass
module
names.
There
is
some
discussion
there
and
I
guess
it's
I'm
just
looking.
D
A
A
D
Yeah
yeah:
it's
there,
it's
there
for
back
porting,
because
the
stuff
landed
after
the
cut
off
for
15.
right,
okay,
yeah,
and
so
we
wanted
to
15-
and
I
I
think,
there's
not
a
lot
of
controversy
here,
but
we
need.
We
need
tsc
people
to
weigh
in
and
say
yes
or
or
know.
If
there's
concerns.
C
I
think
for
me,
like
one
of
the
concerns
that
I
have
is
not
with
this
change
itself,
but
feeling
like
the
policy
that
we
have
around
adding
new
named
modules
and
adding
these
kind
of
like
slash
promises
patterns
are
kind
of
getting
in
the
way
of
progress,
and
I'm
not
saying
that
we
should
necessarily
like
completely
throw
it
out.
I
know
that
for
a
bit
we
had
explored
the
idea
of
using,
like
the
node,
potentially
like
a
node
colon
namespace,
which
we
we
do
have
now.
C
It's
just
not
like
enforce
them.
To
the
best
of
my
knowledge,
I
don't
think
it
works
in
cjs,
but
I
do
think
that
we
should
be
trying
to
find
some
sort
of
pattern
or,
alternatively,
decide
that
we're
okay
with
a
little
bit
more
ecosystem
breakage,
because
the
amount
of
friction
for
these
kinds
of
pull
requests
is
pretty
high
and
a
lot
of
these
things
that
we're
talking
about
right
now
likely
should
have
been
able
to
land
in
15.
A
D
I
mean
that's.
The
problem
is
that
is
that
there
is
active
discussion
and
no
conclusions
and
so
or
was
active
discussion.
I
mean
like
basically
there
was
consensus
that
we
should
land
new
modules
in
in
a
name
space,
but
no
consensus
on
what
that
name
space.
My
recollection,
I
could
be
wrong
about
my
religion.
There's
no
consensus
around
what
that
name.
Space
should
be,
or
you
know
and
then
and
then,
like
a
module,
would
come
up
and
it's
like
well.
D
Do
we
really
want
to
delay
landing
this
module
six
months
while
we
bike
shed
on
on
what
the
process
is
going
to
be,
so
we
either
got
to
get
serious
about
what
the
process
is
and
enforce
it,
or
just
decide
that
we're
going
to
be
a
little
more
relaxed
and
and
just
land
things,
and
I
have
a
feeling
that
I
I
you
know
I
yeah
I
don't.
D
I
don't
know
that
anybody
has
the
fire
in
their
in
their
in
their
in
their
in
their
in
them
to
to
do
all
the
cat
herding
and
advocacy
work.
That
will
be
necessary
to
push
that
that
that
that
that
issue
across
the
finish
line.
C
C
We
just
don't
have
that
feature
over
in
common
js
land,
and
I
think
that
you
know
an
in
intermediary
steps
that
we
could
start
with
and
then
decide
if
it's
sever,
major
or
not
is
porting
that
feature
over
to
cjs
and
then
the
following
thing
after
that
would
be
deciding
whether
or
not
we're
enforcing
the
namespace
for
new
modules,
which
could
make
back
porting
module.
Like
I
don't
know,
I
have
mixed
feelings
about
whether
it
would
be
an
issue,
but.
D
I
think
that's
a
great
idea
for
a
long-term
solution.
I
think
I
I
don't
think
there's
any.
I
don't
think
there's
any
viable
argument
for
for
for
delaying
the
back
porting
of
these
three
modules
on
those
grounds,
because
they're
going
to
land
at
16
anyway,.
C
Yeah-
and
I
think
with
that
in
mind,
though,
like
the
biggest
difference
today
compared
to
like,
I
think
it
was
two
or
three
years
ago,
when
we
had
this
conversation
in
berlin
and
it
was
very
controversial-
was
like
we
now
do
ship
a
namespace
in
node.
It's
not
like,
broadly
like
it's
not
supported
in
common.js,
but
it
is
an
esm.
It's
there.
I
don't
think
we
can
remove
it
so
like
we
can
bike
shed.
All
we
want
or
people
can
talk
about
what
would
be
the
better
sigil
but
like
we're
shipping
something
today
so.
D
C
A
D
A
You
so
okay,
so
any
is
there
more
like
this
one
we're
asking
specifically
for
people
to
weigh
into
that
issue
in
terms
of
like
a
plus
one
and
miles
has
volunteered
sort
of
longer
to
you
know
longer
term
to
but
not
tied
to
this
to
work
on
getting
that
common
gs
functionality
in
place,
which
I
think
would
be
a
great
next
step?
A
C
A
Let's
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
more
visibility
for
tsc
on
performance
issues.
This
is
cscsu
940..
I
raised
this.
I
just
you
know
having
discovered
that
there
we
had
a
few
issues
in,
I
can't
remember,
was
12
or
14.
At
this
point,
I
I
just
wondered
and
thought
I'd
I'd
plant
the
the
seed
to
see.
If
we
think
we
should
do
anything
like
you
know,
do
we
have
them
tagged
already
and
should
we
like
maybe
review
them
periodically
in
the
tsc
meeting?
A
Is
there
anything
worthwhile
doing
on
that
front?
Are
people
happy
the
happy
the
way
we
are.
E
So,
michael,
when
you
say
performance
issues,
what
exactly
do
you
mean?
Is
it
I
guess.
A
A
E
Okay,
so
basically
the
issues
which
are
reported
either
in
the
testing
cycle
or
from
the
users
to
be
kind
of
having
direct
visibility
with
the
dsc
and
have
some
mechanism
to
make
a
stable
progress
on
that
high
priority.
Compared
to
other
issues
in
the
backlog.
A
A
A
D
A
D
Yeah
I
mean
why
is
that
what
why
why
is
performance
I
mean
you
know
why
not
every
I
don't
know
yeah
well,.
D
D
A
D
A
E
D
E
So
one
of
the
argument
is
in
favor
of
having
a
insight
into
the
performance.
Issues
is
the
fact
that
performance
is
tightly
coupled
with
the
v8
and
if
we
understand
correctly,
v8
has
test
buckets
for
node
j
specifically,
but
they
may
be
mostly
on
functional
grounds,
so
it's
possible
that
a
huge
performance
regression
seeps
in
the
lodges
without
taking
much
notice.
E
A
A
I
don't
think
any
of
them.
Like
you
know
we
have.
We
have
a
tag,
although
I
mean
that's
one
thing:
we
have
a
tag,
we
could
just
look
at
those,
so
I
mean,
I
think
some
some
are
probably
minor,
right
or
or
edge
cases.
It's
just
there
was
somewhere.
A
It's
like
you
know,
here's
a
major
regression
and
I
think
in
that
case
it
actually,
if
you
looked
at
acme
air,
which
is
we
don't
run
and
track
well
now,
but
that
was
like
showing
something
like
a
40
regression
and
if,
if
we
believe
that
actually
reflects
real
world
usage,
that's
pretty
significant.
A
Put
on
the
agenda:
that's
past,
that's
like
once
once
every
once
a
month
or
something
even
might
be
makes
sense.
A
The
audit
google
account
access.
I
know
the
it's
just
been
busy
busy
on
the
foundation
side,
so
no
update
on
that.
C
D
C
Which
I
think
also
raises
a
question
of
if
we
are
shutting
down
that
program,
what
still
remains
in
the
charter
of
the
ecosystem,
security
working
group-
or
I
know
they
changed
their
name
recently.
I
forget
exactly
what
it
what
it
was,
but
that
is
something
that
we
should
consider
in
the
process
of
this
as
well,
because
if
there
isn't
much
left
in
their
charter,
then
that
might
be
something
we
need
to
look
into
as
well.
A
A
D
And
leron,
probably
I
don't
know
if
I
don't
know
who
else
on
security
wg
is
would
be
point
person
on
this
kind
of
thing,
but.
C
So
looking
at
this
right
now
and
it
would
appear
under
a
very
quick
review
of
their
charter,
which
I'll
just
drop
in
the
chat.
But
the
majority
of
the
charter
is
based
around
maintaining
this
security
program
and
also
maintaining
like
the
vulnerability
database,
which
I
don't
like.
I
don't
want
to
make
assumptions,
but
I
will
assume
that
if
the
hacker
one
program
is
not
super
actively
maintained,
I
don't
know
how
actively
maintained
the
vulnerability
databases.
C
One
thing
I
can
personally
do
is
I
I
can
ping
internally
at
work
and
see
what
we
have
in
place
for
for
npm
there
we
may
want
to
just
see,
I
guess,
like
sneak,
probably
has
things
as
well.
It
would
likely
be
a
good
idea
if
we're
spinning
things
down
like
this,
that
we
follow
up
with
where,
like
other
places,
people
can
in
the
ecosystem
do
this
stuff
so
that
they
know
where
they
can
go.
A
A
C
Yeah
so
rich,
if
you
were
going
to
reach
out
to
folks,
can
you
just
see
me
on
the
on
that
email
and
I'll
dig
in
internally
and
see
what
options
we
have
to
offer
or
things
that
we
may
need
to
do.
A
A
Okay,
okay,
so
that
is
the
end
of
the
list,
which
is
tagged
for
the
agenda.
Let's
take
a
quick
look
at
the
strategic
initiatives.
A
C
Yeah,
so
we
have
an
open
pr
right
now
to
back
port.
The
last
bit
of
feature
work.
That's
been
done
on
the
modules
side,
which
would
be
the
I'm
trying
to
remember
the
exact
name
of
the
feature,
but
there's
a
star
patterns
that
we
have
then
there's
also
the
common
js
named
exports
feature.
So
those
two
features
should
be
coming
out
in
the
final
semver
miner
before
12
goes
into
maintenance
mode.
C
We
today
just
landed
a
stabilization
of
a
number
of
the
package.
Json
features
that
we've
landed
over
the
last
couple
months,
including
package
exports
and
imports,
and
we're
in
the
process
of
having
the
last
little
discussion
of
what's
needed
to
call
the
es,
module
implementation
as
a
whole,
no
longer
experimental,
and
I
think
I
am
actually
one
of
the
last
holdouts
there
and
we're
just
waiting
for
the
new
common
js
exports
algorithm
stuff
to
just
bake
a
little
bit
longer,
because
you
know
it
only
came
out
a
couple
weeks
ago.
C
A
Okay,
looking
at
other
ones
that
we
have
people
here,
v8
currency,
michael
anything
on
that
front,.