►
Description
A
A
D
A
A
A
F
A
D
I
have
a
question
d:
what's
the
what's
up
with
the
coding
learns,
I
was
kind
of
trying
to
figure
out,
because
I
know
we
had
said
we're
going
to
do
a
couple
more
this
year,
I
think
rich
and
on
our
work.
Gonna
do
some,
but
I
didn't
see
any
information
on
that
and
the
reason
why
I'm
asking
in
the
context
of
collaborators
some
of
this,
because
I
mentioned
in
a
threaded
one
other
times
that
they
in
some
ways
they're
a
question
of
degree.
D
F
Can
speak
a
little
to
that
so
rich
and
Anna
put
together
a
proposal
for
doing
for
leading
a
bunch
of
the
code
in
line
and
that
got
approved
and
there's
whiteboard
allocated
budget
for
now,
they're,
not
planning
on
doing
one
in
Berlin
they're
targeting
some
other
events.
Where
I
mean
a
lot
of
it
had
to
do
I
think
with
their
scheduling,
but
also
with,
like
you
know
where
they
can
target
a
lot
of
you
know,
respective
new
new
contributors
and
I.
Think
the
thought
was
the
collaboration
summit.
Is
that
there's
actually.
F
D
D
B
A
But
this
particular
one,
no
I,
don't
think
that
there
was
any
plan
and
I
and
I
believed
that
the
the
intent
is
to
try
to
separate
the
two
I
know
that
in
in
Amsterdam
have
got
rather
chaotic
because
the
two
events
kind
of
ran
into
one
another,
and
it
just
wasn't
clear
what
was
collaboration
summit
and
what
was
code
and
learn,
and
then
in
Austin
it
was
successful.
We
had
a
clear
separation
between
the
two.
F
Which
was
pretty
successful,
there
was
a
lot
of
people
very
confused
about
how
it
with
methods,
because
one
of
them,
who
literally
for
people
that
have
never
written
a
line
of
core
code
to
work
on
core
and
the
other
event,
is
for
people
that
work
on
core
like
to
talk
to
each
other.
So
if
you
can
see
why
it's
open
season
having
them
like
right
next
to
each
other,
and
so
that
was
one
of
the
one
of
the
main
reasons
why
it
was
kind
of
broken
apart
and
so
that
we
can
message
them.
H
I
remember:
there
was
a
fair
amount
of
just
like
one-on-one
having
to
like
clarify
and
things
like
that.
I
think
there
was
also
a
bit
of
contention
for
resources.
Like
you
know,
collaborators
we
were
going
to
go,
work
on
code,
learn,
couldn't
participate
and
the
the
summit
Italy
said
I
can.
In
my
case
you
know
there
is
some
of
the
code,
mutton
folks
that
I
would
have
loved
to
have
had
participate
until
the
other
discussions
we
had
to
so
there's
a
bit
of
a
contention
for
resources
aspect
as
well.
A
A
H
Yeah,
what
I've
kind
of
done
online
I've
had
few
people
asked
on
Twitter!
Oh,
is
that
they,
like
you
know
you
you're,
welcome
to
calm.
You
know
we
love
need
people
coming
in,
but
at
the
same
time
we're
going
to
be
getting
really
in
the
weeds,
and
so
you
might
be
kind
of
lost,
and
so
that's
kind
of
like
leaving
the
decision
up
to
them.
H
You
know:
do
they
want
to
take
that
on
and
try
and
wrap
up
really
quickly,
because
reverse
I,
something
that
I
think
it's
important
to
be
careful
of
is
that
we
don't
spend
too
much
time
just
like
restating
the
problem,
and
then
we
have
time
to
really
dig
into
it.
Sorry,
it's
definitely
a
balancing
act
that
we
need
to
work
out
right.
F
Alright,
so
let's
go
yeah,
look,
let
me
just
say
one
thing
about
only
having
committers
independent
or
not,
so
it
I
think
one
of
the
reasons
why
I
just
got
a
little
money
last
time
was
because
we
run
out
of
room
a
few
times
like
we
have
a
lot
of
competitors
that
show
up
at
the
thing.
Isn't
we
only
have
so
much?
F
We
can
do
I,
don't
think
that
we're
going
to
have
that
problem
so
much
in
Berlin
I,
don't
think
that
we're
worried
about
overflowing,
and
so,
if
people
that
are
interested
in
talking
about
core
that
are
from
the
ecosystem
and
there
are
a
fair
amount
of
them,
I
think
that
we
should
invite
them
as
well.
We
just
have
to
set
up
front
that
sit
front
of
like
we're.
A
Make
sense?
Okay,
so
I
don't
have
to
get
too
much
time.
Let's
definitely
a
conversation
right
now
about
the
agenda
for
collaborator
summit.
Please
jump
into
the
github
thread
and
weigh
in
on
that.
You
have
any
preferences
as
far
as
the
agenda
setting
is
concerned,
and
then
let's
go
ahead
and
move
on.
G
A
G
A
A
Yeah,
let's
push
them
off
and
wait,
then
so
I
want
to
get
to
issue
in
142,
which
is
the
revised
membership
rules,
but
I'm
going
to
push
that
one.
Second,
here,
let's
talk
about
the
community
committee,
one
code
of
conduct
for
everything
number
seven
I
think
we'll
discuss
them.
This
before
was
setting
up
moving
the
code
of
conduct
to
another
repo,
its
own
repo
I.
A
I
had
the
to
do
is
going
to
go
ahead
and
set
up
that
that
repo
and
open
a
PR
I've
been
tied
up
in
job
change
stuff,
so
I
have
not
been
able
to
do.
That
was
just
a
low
priority
before
I
started
down
that
road
I
wanted
to
just
double
check,
to
make
sure
that
there
were
no
objections
to
doing
this
again.
The
idea
is
to
take
the
existing
code
of
conduct
out
of
core
out
of
the
core
repo
move
it
into
its
own
repo.
A
C
My
unofficial
objection
I
would
so
the
problem
is.
We
have
external
links
pointing
there
so
I'd,
rather
not
remove
it
completely
because
that'll
just
404
on
github,
which
is
really
not
something
we
want
for
a
code
of
conduct
at
all,
so
I'm
minimum.
There
should
be
a
link
there
just
point
you
to
the
right
place,
but
I
also
just
don't
feel
a
special
repose
is
needed
just
for
the
code
of
conduct.
I
think
it
would
serve
just
fine
under
the
TSE
or
even
the
ctc
repo,
but
it
doesn't.
C
Noted
so
I
mean
any
time
we
started
repo.
Then
it
becomes
this
okay,
who
has
commit
bits
here
and
who
kind
of
removed
this
change
and
who's
in
charge
of
it
and
I
know
it
falls
the
TST,
but
it
becomes
unclear
and
Evan.
You
know,
frankly,
the
CTC
has
a
giant
weigh
in
on
that
too.
So
yeah
and
I
just
don't
want
a
new
repo.
So.
F
B
F
There
you
would
modify
them
in
a
while
back.
We
change
that
process
to
be
no
don't
copy
them
over.
Just
like
you
point
at
these
ones
that
we
maintain
and
then,
if
you
actually
do,
want
to
maintain
essentially
a
fork
of
it
or
an
improved
version
of
the
process
and
by
all
means
copy
it
into
your
own
directory
and
for
some
reason
we
just
never
move
that
around
for
the
code
of
conduct
another
one
well.
A
I'll
open
a
PR
that
moves
it
into
the
tsc
repo
and
another
PR
that
it
modifies
the
one
in
core
to
contain
a
link.
What
I
propose
for
the
concern
that
will
mention
is
that
we
keep
that
stub
with
the
link-
or
you
know
a
number
of
months,
maybe
up
to
a
year
and
then
remove
it,
like
maybe
around
the
10
time
frame.
That
gives
us
time
to
update
all
of
those
existing
links
to
that
file.
Did
we
know
up.
F
C
Kind
of
on
that
note
of
tracking
I
agree
with
that
James
yeah.
On
that
note
of
tracking,
though
what
do
we
think
about
putting
a
redirect
on
the
nodejs
org
and
just
have
like
/
code
of
conduct,
or
something
like
that
that
just
redirects
you
to
get
hub
and
we
could
then
collect
traffic
off
of
that
it
can
be
forever
the
canonical
link
to
external
sites
in
case
it
ever.
I
I
H
F
Also,
I
would
say
that,
like
you
know,
if
we
do
something
like
say,
conduct
know
jeff
at
order
ninja
veteran
/
conduct,
we
we
then
owned
that
Earl
forever
and
if
we
want
to
point
it
to
a
different
code
of
conduct
or
want
to
change
things,
we
don't
run
into
this
problem
again
when
we
have
to
keep
around
the
top
level
file.
It
just
have
like
a
scub
in
it
right.
F
It
would
actually
be
a
good
idea
to
maybe
like
come
up
with
a
couple
other
cases
where
we
can
do
this
as
well
like
we
could
probably
I,
would
love
to
see
us
do
this
for
the
board
minute
the
board
meeting
minutes
so
that
we
can
keep
them
in
a
separate
repository
in
the
board
repo
and
not
trying
to
integrate
that
into
the
website,
build
process
and
stuff
like
that.
This.
This
would
be.
A
A
Well,
there
the
place
of
words
copied
out
there-
folks,
you
know
generally
have
the
autonomy
right
that
they
want
to
keep
that
version.
There
then
great,
if
not,
then
we're
giving
them
a
central
location
where
this
is
where
it.
This
is
where
the
source
of
truth
is
update,
it
and
point
to
it.
If
you
want
right
so
I
think
what
we
decided
blast,
some
we
discussed
is
it
as
far
as
process
is
concerned.
Nothing
actually
changes.
It's
just
we're
just
changing
where
it
lives.
H
A
Okay,
full
moving
on
to
a
little
more
involved.
We've
revised
membership
rules,
we'd
like
to
get
this
resolved.
I
know
that
the
PR
has
a
number
about
sending
issues
has
been
points
out.
There's
some
feedback
based
on
the
changes
I
made
last
thing
comes
last
weaker
for
us,
I
revised
it
to
be
participation,
rules
rather
than
attendance
rules
and
I
am
not.
Everyone
has
weighed
in
on
that,
since
I
made
that
change
been
offered.
A
But
I
think
what
we
need
to
do
is
just
kind
of
come
to
a
resolution
as
much
as
we
can
today
that
you
know
this
is
what
we
want
to
proceed
with
and
then
try
to
get
this
landed.
We
still
have
the
two-thirds
requirement
for
actually
passing
this,
though,
and
I'm
not
quite
sure
how
close
we
are
to
that.
F
D
F
Majority
as
well,
so
that's
I
think
the
last
thing
that
people
objected
to
that
wasn't
resolved
as
far
as
the
falling
back
to
participation,
rule
I
think
that
there
are
well.
There
are
some
people
that
probably
want
to
have.
You
know
that
be
a
meeting
rule.
Falling
back
presentation
is
a
lower
bottom,
and
so,
if
we
can
just
agree
on
that,
like
nobody's
going
to
object
to
that
being
the
bar
people
may
want
to
make
it
higher
sometime
in
the
future.
But
just
in
the
interest
in
moving
on
I
think
saying,
participation
is
fine.
H
B
F
Unlike,
unlike
almost
every
other
document
which
which
is
living
and
we
can
change
I
will
every
change
of
this
document
has
to
go
up
for
board
approval,
so
it's
actually
incredibly
annoying
to
change
and
whenever
possible,
this
document
defers
things
to
other
documents,
like
the
reason
why
this
doesn't
cover
any
of
the
project
process
or
yeah.
The
project
office
is
because
we
want
that
to
be
living
document
so
like
yes,
you
can
come
back
and
revise
it
like
later,
but
we're.
F
A
A
Okay,
so
the
participation
rule,
but
that
I
changed
it
to
there
is
in
the
case
where
an
individual
to
see
member
attends
fewer
than
twenty
five
percent
of
the
rigorous
schedule
meetings
published
on
a
six-month
period
and
does
not
attend
at
least
one
meeting
every
three
months
been
specific
change
was
just
to
make
it
collapse
that
into
does
not
attend
attends
fewer
than
twenty
five
percent
of
the
meeting
every
three
months,
in
addition
to
the
other
participation
rule.
So
maybe
let
me
go
back
and
close.
The
whole
thing
so
I
can
read
all,
but
here.
D
The
it
seems
like
the
simpler,
the
better
next
we
get
I
mean
that,
even
if
somebody
actually
mrs.
like
we're
not
actually
gonna,
kick
them
out,
we're
just
going
to
go
up
to
them
and
say
yeah
exactly.
This
was
gland
up
happening
unless
they
literally
disappear,
in
which
case
they
obviously
don't
want
to
be
involved
anyway.
Right.
I
I
A
The
attendance
is
in
the
case
where
an
individual
to
see
member
attends
fewer
than
twenty
five
percent
for
the
regularly
scheduled
meetings
in
a
three-month
period.
That's
what
I
wrote
altered
with
Ben's
suggestion
does
not
regularly
participate
in
TC
discussions,
which
we
need
to
kind
of
find
what
that
means
and
does
not
regularly
participate
in
CSE
votes
for
those
second,
two
items:
what
do
we
want
to
define
its
regularly
in
terms
of
the
github
discussions
and
votes?
I.
F
Would
say
an
activity
for
three
months
is
probably
a
good
bar
like
from
what
we've
seen
so
far
that
that
that
really
describes
like
we.
We
don't
really
have
people
that
you
know
float
in
the
twenty
five
to
thirty
percent
of
participation
range.
We
literally
have
people
that
don't
do
anything
for
three
months
or
are
around
okay,
so.
A
I
C
A
F
E
A
The
original
the
language
I
have
here
in
my
PR
said
six
months,
but
your
suggestion
was
to
just
make
it
down
to
twenty-five
percent
and
three
months,
if
I
recall
correctly
yeah
exactly
and
if
they
for
that
threshold
is,
if
they're,
if
they're,
not
meeting
that
minimum
requirement,
they
are
asked
to
resign.
And
then,
if
it
goes
for
six
months,
then
they're
distraught
automatically.
H
I
mean
especially
since
we're,
including
like
github
participation,
which
has
a
much
lower
bar
to
entry.
You
know
I,
think
hey
if
you're
not
participating
in
github
discussions.
Look
at
all
of
the
course
of
a
three
month
period
that
that's,
I
would
say,
really
an
inactive
I
mean
meetings
is
one
thing
like
I
could
get
that
being
an
issue,
but
github
discussions
are
asynchronous.
It's
you
know.
We
don't
have
to
worry
about
time
zones
and
things
like
that,
so
yeah,
yeah,
I,
think
three
months
is
a
good
barrier
for
that.
D
C
G
C
C
C
G
A
A
Okay,
we
need
to
try
to
get
a
two-thirds
vote
on
this
play
by
Monday
and
so
I'll
get
the
I'll
get
it
definitely
updated
by
tomorrow.
If
everyone
can
please
commit
to
looking
at
it
and
and
putting
in
a
vote
with
the
intention
of
being
able
to
send
this
to
the
board
by
Monday
afternoon,
what
time
is
the
meeting
Monday.
F
F
That
I
would
not
I
would
not
say
that
that's
true,
so
I
mean
this
may
have
changed
in
the
preceding
two
years,
but
when,
when
we
initially
wrote
the
Atacama
two
years
ago,
several
board
members
were
very
concerned
with
how
we
defined
how
people
get
on
and
off.
The
concern
was
that
you
know
people,
you
know
we've
thrown
out
or
excluded
or
no
there.
There
could
be
some
kind
of
hostile
takeover
like
that
kind
of
thing.
So
there
was
there's
always
been
a
lot
of
it
for
some
board
members
and
how
we
define
when.
I
H
C
H
About
this
I'm,
not
very
optimistic
either.
What
if,
on
monday
at
the
board
meeting
yeah
brought?
I
guess
if
you
could
bring
up
this
idea
around
participation
of
like
this
idea
of
putting
it
into
a
living
document
and
just
like
gauge.
If
the
board
is
okay
with
that
or
not
get
like
sort
of
a
provisional
okay
on
taking
that
route,
it's
like
I
think
if
the
board
is
okay
with
that,
I
would
definitely
prefer
to
that
as
well.
H
A
G
A
G
A
Alright,
so
I
will
try
I'm,
not
optimistic,
and
if
we
don't
make
it
by
monday,
we
gonna
do
the
async
by
email,
approach
and
I.
Think
that
is
part
of
the
request
to
the
board.
I
think
asking
them
if
this
is
something
that
they
really
care
about
and
want
to
see
it
in
the
Charter
or
can
it
live
on
its
own
I?
Think
that's
also
a
viable
question
to
ask.
A
Okay
I'll
put
the
team
I
want
to
get
to
the
other
issue
here
that
was
raised
about
the
the
voting
off
the
island
I'm
regarding
two-thirds,
but
so
the
document
is
currently
written,
such
that,
like
current
Charter,
requires
two
thirds
to
add
and
two
thirds
to
remove
now
in
practice,
we've
done
unanimous
to
add
the
idea
for
the
two-thirds
to
remove
was
to
set
a
pretty
high
bar
for
us
to
to
take
that
action
there
has
to
be.
It
has
to
be
a
pretty
significant
thing
for
us
to
force
somebody
out
we're
changing
that.
A
This
document
changes
the
adding
rule
to
simple
majority.
Just
in
case
we
can't
get
two-thirds
quorum.
We
we
can
still
add
somebody,
but
it
keeps
the
two-thirds
rule
for
removing
the
suggestion.
The
feedback
is
that
we
should
either
just
keep
it
at
two-thirds
and
for
removal
or
and
I
would
keep
keep,
adding
and
removing
the
same
I
do
two
thirds
or
keep
them
both
at
simple
majority.
I.
A
A
E
F
E
F
E
F
E
A
Fortunately,
it's
not
a
situation
that
you
know
we've
had
to
deal
with,
and
it's
not
a
situation
that
I
anticipate
as
having
to
deal
with,
especially
once
we
get
into
the
new
the
new
participation
rules.
Anyway.
It
allows
it
to
be
more
of
a
just
kind
of
a
natural
somebody's,
not
participating,
so
it
just
fall
off
the
fall
off
on
their
own.
A
I
You
mentioned
three
months,
then
we
asked
nicely,
and
after
six
months
someone
is
removed
automatically
yeah,
I'm
kind
of
with
William.
That
I
think
that's
too
long.
It
means
that
will
we
could
hypothetically
be
at
a
standstill
at
the
deadlock
for
six
months
yeah
and
that's
well
self-evidently,
bed,
of
course,.
A
A
F
Right,
yeah,
you're
gonna
have
a
hundred
times
during
that,
though
I
think
honestly,
like
that
happens,
a
language.
The
way
that
it
is
is
is
ideal,
even
though
it's
a
little
bit
complicated,
because
what
one
like,
if
we're
not
having
quorum
issues,
it
would
be
really
attractive
to
just
never
remove
anybody,
but
I've
seen
another
project
where
this
becomes
like
a
really
big
problem.
F
H
Agreed
and
I'd
also
add
that
having
it
automatic
is
important
because
you
know
if
we
are
voting
on
it,
that
does
make
it
feel
more
personal.
You
know
when
it's
automatic
week,
you
know
what
it
can't
come
back
to
us
is
like
you
know.
We
decided
that
we
don't
want
you
it's
like
I'm
sorry,
but
this
is
just
how
it
works
is
an
automated
system.
It's
you
know,
impersonal,
yeah,.
I
H
Hey
I,
don't
I
do
and
I
don't
agree
with
that.
Just
you
know
practically
speaking
there
are
people
will
have
a
problem
most
likely
with
it.
Just
human
beings
are
irrational
and
I'm,
not
thinking
about
this
in
terms
with
their
feelings,
I'm.
Thinking
about
this
in
terms
of
the
potential
to
create
a
shitstorm
on
Twitter
and
stuff
like
that,
and
then
that's
something
else
that
you
have
to
manage
it.
You
know
this
is
yeah
I'm,
just
basically
worried
about.
You
know
like
flame
wars
breaking
out
because
of
it
and
trying
to
prevent
that
from
happening.
H
A
That's
that's
a
big
part
of
that
is
why
we
document
this
process.
So
if
somebody's
just
not
participating
up
with
you
know
and
three
months
ago
in
bond
issues
are
getting
backed
up
because
of
it,
and
you
know
we
explicitly
asked
them
hey
yeah.
Are
you
going
to
display
it
or
not
anytime?
After
that
point,
I
think
we
are
perfectly
justified
in
voting
somebody
off
the
island
and
then
at
six
months
it
just
becomes
automatic.
We
don't
even
have
to
have
to
have
a
boat,
there's
nothing
that
says
that
we
can't
do
that.
A
F
I
F
I
mean
I'm
kind
of
for
that,
to
be
honest,
like
as
long
as
we
have
an
easier
road
to
getting
people
added
back
on
when
they
want
to
participate
again,
I
don't
see
the
problem
in
removing
them
like.
We
do
need
to
turn
this
into
a
participation
list
rather
than
in
a
matter
right
and
that's
a
good
way
to
establish
it,
not.
A
I,
I
I've
no
just
that.
Let's
keep
the
language,
though,
that
says
that
the
person
made
there.
They
may
be
removed
it
for
three
months
by
further
voting
rights,
but
they
are
still
welcome
as
an
observer
and
I
think
that
gives
us
that
easy
path
for
them
coming
back
on
later,
after,
if
they
know
that
there's
still
a
lot
of
these
participate
in
conversations
no.
G
E
H
A
H
A
F
A
D
I
just
were
getting
late,
so
I
just
want
to
call
this
out
real
quick
I
dropped
it
in
the
Q&A
think
they're
noticed
some
stuff
from
the
medium
at
nodejs,
Michael
I
guess
you
might
know
about
this.
There's
been
some
funny
snippets
coming
into
my
RSS
feed.
Maybe,
and
even
now,
there's
like
a
I
would
consider
a
bit
of
a
funny
message,
the
top,
but
maybe
that's
a
medium
work.
So
I
don't
know
just
FYI
have.