►
Description
A
So
far
we
have
here
Michael,
Dawson,
germiston,
Bickle,
Connor
egg
Traci,
Hines,
Josh,
gavotte,
Brian
Hughes,
and
that's
it.
We
have
about
five
issues
on
our
agenda.
Maybe
six
collaboration
summit
input
on
employer
restriction
to
the
tsc
director
which
we're
going
to
defer
the
public
discussion
until
next
week,
nominating
at
ahead
an
ascended
sin
nominating
Michael
Dawson
to
the
tsc
copyright
date,
TS
copyright
date
and
updating
the
copyright
and
clarifying
which
people
should
be
or
owners.
B
B
B
A
B
A
Excellent,
ok,
so
moving
on
to
the
agenda
items
for
this
week,
so
the
next
collaboration
summit
we've
already
talked
about
that
sorry
yeah.
We
already
talked
about
that
input
on
port
of
instructions
are
going
to
defer
till
next
week,
so
the
next
one
is
nominating
Anna
pending
against
into
the
tsc
I
know.
People
have
been
voting
in
the
issue
itself,
so
let's
just
pull
that
open.
A
C
C
A
B
A
A
A
A
Okay,
last
update
was
20
20
days
ago,
so
I
think
before
the
previous
meeting,
I
think
as
I
remember,
we
were
just
waiting
for
the
board
to
come
back
on
the
you
know
we
were
asked.
We
asked
them
if
we
could
move
forward
with
the
second
step
and
we
were
waiting
to
see
if
we
heard
back
from
them.
That's.
E
F
F
Can
pull
up
the
notes?
I?
Don't
recall
that
being
resolved
yeah
because
I
know
that,
like
that's
been
it
on
I
know,
the
two
points
were
ongoing
discussions.
The
first
one
was
approved
and
the
second
had
been
sent
back
and
it
sounds
like
y'all
had
sent
that
back.
But
I
don't
recall
in
the
last
meeting
that
being
resolved.
A
A
G
A
A
I
know
there
was
discussion
back
and
forth
on
that
part
of
the
discussion
was
around
some
of
the
repos
I
guess
in
terms
of
concern
over
the
secrets,
repo
I
know
what
part
of
it
was
clarified
that
you
know
the
getting
access
to
the
secrets.
Repo
doesn't
actually
give
you
access
to
the
secrets,
because
they're
still
encrypted
so
I
think
it's
not
necessarily
required
to
remove
that.
A
B
So
that's
good
on
the
secrets,
repo
I'll,
I
kind
of
I
think
doesn't
come
up
in
a
couple
other
places.
Also
what
exactly
the
maybe
we
should
start
by
documenting
the
available
github
groups
and
what
they
like
they
confer.
I,
don't
I,
don't
even
know
what
the
hell
far
and
then
kind
of
relating
that
to
membership
in
the
various
either
in
the
foundation
and
the
working
groups.
You
know
it's
kind
of
ad
hoc
now
yeah.
B
A
F
F
Yeah,
this
was
a
discussion
that
we
had
before
I
think
with
I.
Think
back
in
December,
with
rod
and
William
and
James
had
a
very,
very
uncor
of
t,
SC
meeting,
because
it's
the
holidays,
but
whereas
sort
of
like
well.
Where
does
the
community
committee
belong?
Because
we
want
to
be
alongside
everything,
that's
happening
because
we
are,
you
know
as
we
form,
but
the
org
ownership
is
a
little
awkward
in
that
scenario,.
C
Two
of
our
guardian
right,
Santa
pushed
so
far
as
you
know
more
the
question
of
asking:
why
do
people
need
to
be
owners?
Yeah,
you
know
how
does
not
being
an
owner
interfere
with
a
person's
ability
to
perform
the
role
that
they're
in
so
like
you
know,
the
reason
be
an
org
owner
is
typically
to
either
you
know,
handout
permissions
or
to
moderate
I.
Believe
that's
like
the
two
things
so
there's
some
other
things
involved.
E
E
C
Maybe
this
would
be
a
useful
exercise
for
us
to
go
through
like
get
oldest
written
down
in
that
issue
of,
like
you
know,
what
are
the
things
that
needs
to
be
done
as
an
organ
are
and
how
much
it
can
be
mitigated
by
bots
and
like
how
does
that
affect
the
roles
so,
like
the
communities,
I
think
a
really
interesting
was
you
know
going
back
to
you?
You
know.
Why
did
you
commit
community
community
members
need
to
the
org
honors
in
order
to
form
that
role?
C
F
Cuz
I
would
say,
like
I,
don't
actually
think
like
most
people
and
commuting
me.
You
would
want
that
role
either.
It
was
just
more
along
the
question
of
what
Brian
said,
which
was
like.
Why
do
people
want
that?
We're
gonna
roll
in
the
first
place
like
I
would
I
would
assume
that
it
should
be
less
people
not
more,
but
it
is
sort
of
a
tag
of
like
leadership,
I
suppose
and
like
who's
responsible
for
these
things,
I
don't.
A
D
B
A
F
A
F
The
reason
we
didn't
form
a
separate
org
was
because,
just
from
like
a
figurative
perspective
like
that,
sets
us
apart
and
that's
like
the
opposite
of,
like
all
the
community
like
that,
doesn't
make
any
sense,
but
yeah
I
mean
it's
just
in
terms
of
like,
because
we
are
autonomous.
It's
all
like
we
realize
like
we
were
just
gonna
pause,
because
we
don't
have
these
concerns
yet,
like
we
haven't
run
into
a
circumstance
where
we're
putting
our
heads
up
against
the
wall
and
being
like.
F
Oh
well,
like
the
tsc,
you
shouldn't
be
doing
this
like
no,
that's
not
a
thing
so
like
that's.
Why
we
haven't
asked
for
this,
because
we
haven't
run
into
a
problem
yet
regarding
this
and
we're
trying
to
caution
from
like
just
trying
to
set
these
arbitrary
things
in
place,
because
out
of
fear
of
things
that
have
not
happened
right.
E
So,
coming
back
to
to
the
point
like
the
of
the
issue,
so
in
the
past:
well,
we
didn't
really
add
tsc
members
for
a
long
time,
but
at
some
point
in
the
past
we
were
just
all
given
owner
permissions,
probably
by
Michael
I.
Don't
remember
these
specifics
on
why
so
the
question
is:
should
we
just
like
keep
doing
that
or
should
like
the
existing
owners,
be
trimmed
down
and
be
more
specific
in
some
way,
I
mean.
A
A
B
F
That's
what
we're
saying
here
is
that
maybe
it's
time
to
figure
out
what
we're
gonna
ownership
means
and
then
get
people
who
are
willing
to
be
active
because
you're
right,
like
you,
don't
want
the
lottery
factor
where
someone
ghosts
and
they
were
responsible
for
that
or
you
know
that
repo
or
whatever
but
I,
think
being
like
it's
always
nice
to
do
a
little
cleanup
and
figure
out
like
who
actually
wants
to
do
that
work
and
then
maybe
they
should
be
the
ones.
I
don't
know,
that's
more
work,
yeah.
A
F
E
Yes,
you
can
see
all
the
private
repos
right
so
I.
The
first
I
just
note
that,
like
the
security
repo,
isn't
really
security
for
like
node
stuff
in
general,
it
is
specifically
about
node
core.
Most
external
I
mean
there's
like
a
security
working
group
and
there's
some
movement
on
security
data
I
think
from
nsp,
that's
kind
of
like
a
separate
thing.
It.
E
A
E
F
H
C
Say
that
there
is
also
just
a
broader,
more
general
thing
is
that
you
know
organ
ownership
is
a
big
keys
to
the
kingdom
and
a
large
sense,
and
yes
I.
Don't
trust
the
individuals,
but
you
know,
accounts,
get
compromised
and
things
like
that
is
the
more
people
who
have
access
to
good
chance
that
you
know
someone's
account
might
be
compromised
or
something.
Then
people
could
do
some
real
damage
to
the
org,
so
yeah.
That
reason
usually
want
to
keep
you
know.
The
number
of
people
wanted
it
just
to
be
clear
service
area,
yeah.
A
True,
that's
where
the
opt-in
might
help
right
so,
like
the
people
are
going
to
be
I
used
it
or
in
and
the
other
people
aren't
I
mean
moving
the
security
repo
out
is
I,
just
wonder
alike,
so
we
just
create
another,
a
second
or
right
and
have
some
one
that
repo
and
maybe
others,
is
there
anything
more
subtle
to
that
than
I'm
missing.
No.
F
A
B
A
It's
been
relatively
ad
hoc,
you
know
rods
been
involved
in
who
gets
out
it.
I
know,
James
has
probably
been
involved
and
it's
probably
reasonable
for
us
to
formalize.
You
know
that
process.
You
know,
I
think
it's
been
people
who
have
been.
You
know,
people
that
have
been
in
the
group
or
we've
said
yeah,
okay,
we
know
them
and
there's
a
reason
for
them
to
need
access
to
that
security.
A
C
Yeah
I
feel
like
this
is
the
thing
we
should
delegate
to
the
CTC.
Let
the
CTC
figure
out
who
wants
to
get
added
or
not
because
who's
going
to
be
added
or
not
you
know,
I
would
assume,
is
going
to
be
based
on
very
technical
reasons
and
those
permissions.
You
don't
involve,
like
technical
reasons,
to
have
or
not
have
those
permissions
so
or
at
least
I'd
like
to
hear
what
the
CTC
thinks
and
I
I.
A
B
I
believe
that
it
I
had
an
email
from
Michael
at
some
point.
I
think
that
it
said
I
think
he
felt
that
the
CTC
and
security
committees
were
kind
of
overlapping,
like
anyone
on
the
CTC
would
have
access
to
security
stuff,
which
I
don't
know.
If
it's
true
that
was
the
impression
I
had
which
supports
what
Brian
just
said.
A
So,
what's
our
next
concrete
step,
I
guess
on
on
the
discussion?
Is
it
that
we
want
to
put
together
the
list
of
privileges
and
stuff
or
do
we
have
something
to
move
forward
to
on
the
like,
because
that's
almost
a
separate
issue
from
the
security
repo
itself
right
I
mean
the
issue
we
were
talking
about
security.
Repo
is
one
thing
that
plays
into
it,
but
it's
just
because
we
just
we
decide
who
are
the
ogre
Oregon
oars.
We
haven't
solved
that
problem.
I
guess
in
last
thing
overlap.
A
C
B
A
But
was
almost
I
thought
it
was
like
if
we
could
show
what
you
got,
then
you
could
answer
that
question
as
to
whether
I
have
it
or
not.
Right
like
it
gives
you
the
data
to
say.
Yeah.
Okay,
makes
sense
for
this
group
of
people
to
have
it,
because
it
allows
them
to
do
these
things,
and
we
want
these
people
to
be
able
to
do
them.
Do
it
I.
A
We
know
there's
the
other,
like
those
are
potential
issues.
The
other
ones
are
more
like
you
know.
The
original
comment
like
well
just
having
them
is
a
risk
itself,
so
you
could
say:
well,
let's
have
nobody,
but
then
how
would
that
impact
our
ability
to
get
stuff
done
so
understanding?
What
all
these
things?
B
So
far,
it
seems
to
have
been
okay
like
I'll,
just
like
the
youtube
account
I
got.
It's
super
annoying
that
actually
I
go
to
youtube
and
it
logs
beyond
as
the
node
foundation
right
but
like
that,
like
s-type,
occasionally
like
forgotten
to
switch
and
like
it,
I
don't
know
like
favored
it
up
video
or
something
oh
shoot,
I
gotta
change
that
yeah,
but
that's
work
but
like
despite
that
potential
for
problems.
It
really
hasn't
caused
a
problem.
So
I'm,
just
I'm,
saying
like
it
seems
like
it's:
okay
for
the
15
or
20
people.
A
C
Yeah
and
I
think
this
is
a
that's.
It's
a
pretty
reasonable
number
where
we're
at
right
now,
I'm,
mostly
thinking
if
this
were
going
to
scale
up
my
future,
if
you
know
say
the
CTC
grows
quite
bit
larger,
for
example,
which
would
be
awesome
if
it
did,
you
know
getting
more
people
is
great,
but
for
all
of
us
I'm
looking
at
you
know
fifty
or
donors.
You
know
hypothetical
we're
giving
you
a
lot
of
awesome
people
helping
out.
You
know,
then
that
might
be
a
little
trickier.
A
A
So
why
don't
we
oh
yeah,
I
think
why
don't
we
open
the
assume
we
can
see
like
you
know,
people
jump
in
and
it
gets
filled
in
great.
If
not,
we
can
discuss
in
a
future
meeting
to
try
and
put
some
more
focus
on
that.
That
makes
sense,
and
maybe
at
that
point
we'll
have
heard
back
on
the
security
repo
as
well.
A
C
A
D
E
F
And
I,
then
eventually
I
believe
that
they
became
a
separate
and
moved
round
foundations.
So
the
last
poem
with
the
software
freedom,
software
Conservancy
bottom
software,
freedom,
conservative,
sorry,
okay
and
we
are
I-
will
say.
If
anybody
has
questions
about
that,
we
are
I
am
royal.
We
is
terrible,
I
am
doing
the
research,
we
just
finished
the
post-mortems
or
the
outreach
II
winter
cohort
and
trying
to
figure
out
what
our
next
steps
are
for
an
internship
program.
This
year.
F
F
A
D
E
E
E
Yeah,
I
think
this
generally
kind
of
depends
on
how
you
structure
your
applications
in
general
and
how
we
efficient.
You
are
with
memory,
a
sort
of
a
technical
note.
The
v8
JavaScript
engine
does
like
to
allocate
for
itself
a
lot
of
memory
and
then
reuse
that
later
on,
so
you
might
run
into
that
I
think
that's
a
good
enough
answer.
We
can
probably.