►
Description
B
B
B
B
Think
like
we,
we
were
hoping
that
I
think
it
was
Gibson
who
was
gonna
come,
but
he's
not
here
yet
so
maybe
we'll
defer
that
to
later
on
in
the
meeting
and
see
if
people
show
up.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
no
js'
the
issues
extracted
from
the
TSE
agenda.
The
first
one
of
those
is
path:
deprecate
internal
maeklong,
replace
issue
number
fourteen,
nine
five,
six.
B
E
In
stand
of
things,
yes,
I'm,
the
new
module
that
John
Dalton,
it
is
doing
that
enables
to
use
the
new
es7,
probably
type
of
things
on
node,
4
and
node
6,
and
no
date
will
do
all
the
new
import
stuff
and
so
on
by
automatic
translation.
There
are
certain
functions
from
the
core
that
are
currently
prefixed
and
he
needs
to
use
so
you
would
like
to
you
would
like
to
have
those
one
of
those
things
which
is
this
specific
one
to
be
without
the
underscores,
so
that
is
part
of
the
public
contract.
E
Well,
it
will
be
relying
on
it,
so
we
might
as
well
like
take
do
that
and
we
might
as
well
remove
the
underscore
make
it
documented,
make
it
public
and
be
done
with
it.
Okay,
it's
that
the
reason,
our
that
the
reason
behind
this
thing-
Jay
Dalton,
it's
looking
to
use
this
module
in
the
context
of
you
of
lodash,
so
it
might
be
markedly
papua.
H
D
H
D
It
seems
like
this:
can
land
there's
a
there's,
a
-0
from
Trevor
and
there's
certainly
been
adequate
time
for
people
with
objections
to
state
them.
So
unless
Reubens
looking
for
an
answer
to
a
very
particular
question,
as
opposed
to
should
we
move
forward
with
this,
it
seems
like
this:
can
land?
Does
anyone
else
see
it
differently
than
that
I.
A
E
So
Michael
do
you
have
like
majority
to
say
that
the
majority
of
the
TSC
here
is
fine
with
that
pure
class
learning,
because
it
it
seems
they
ended
reading
been
comments
is
say
that
if
enough,
the
CTC
members
think
the
answer
to
both
questions
is
yes,
then
this
PR
is
good
to
go
at
this
comment
and
I'm
parking
it
in
the
chat.
So
you
might
want
to
include
that
in
implementing
in
the
notes
Michael.
H
D
H
D
H
B
B
B
Okay,
so
that
is,
that
was
the
first
issue.
The
next
issue
is
expectations
on
TSE
and
calm,
calm
members,
which
is
issue
number
12,
I
added
that
to
the
end,
to
make
sure
that
everybody's
aware
of
it
has
read
it
and
comments
if
they
have
concerns
or
issues.
You
know
it's
something
that
would
apply
to
all
of
us,
so
I
just
you
know
the
only
real
reason,
I
added
was
to
make
sure
everybody.
B
Absolutely
everybody
here
is
aware
that
that's
there
and
that
you
know
it's
it's
documenting
expectations
which
we
for
the
most
part
believe
are
already
in
place
just
trying
to
make
it
a
little
bit
more
explicit
on
the
members
of
the
TSE
in
the
calm,
calm
team,
so
the
the
the
sort
of
blocking
issue
on
on
it
right
now.
Moving
forward
is
talking
about
the
values
which
it
references
and
we've
got
on
the
agenda
to
start
that
discussion,
but
otherwise
go
in
there
and
yep.
E
Sorry
Michael
I
am
there
is
one
thing
that
was
brought
up
from
from
rod
and
I
think
it
was
talking
a
lot
a
little
bit
about
it.
The
the
fact
that
the
role
of
the
moderation
team
within
that
stuff,
okay,
yeah,
because
that
was
definitely
not
covered
and
one
thing-
is
leveling
the
moderation
process
for
rising
concerns.
Okay,
you
know
that
part
probably
should
be
included
in
in
the
document
itself.
E
E
B
E
L
E
E
Like
I,
just
read
your
comments
right
now,
so
I
didn't
I
was
aware
of
what
Rob
did
I
just
read
your
comments
right
now,
so
I
am
going
to
tap
it
and
I,
because
it
is
what
it
is
and
there
is
a
weight
range
of
people
and
the
moment
you
start
questioning
the
leadership
it.
It
might
become
a
hot
topic
even
between
our
socks.
Okay,
it
might
be
fine
to
level
at
the
moderation
repo
but
I'm,
just
flagging.
That
might.
E
C
H
C
H
H
I,
think
it
serves
as
like
a
high
level
kind
of
a
mission
statement
rather
than
like
how
this
is
held
accountable
and
I,
think
that
it
would
be,
and
I
Michael
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
if
like
it
seems
like
what
you
were
saying,
is
anything
that
has
to
do
with
like
holding
people
accountable
to
this
make
sense
to
have
in
another
document.
That's
explicit
about
moderation
is
that
is
that
correct,
I.
B
Didn't
say
that,
but
I
think
that's
a
good
idea
in
mine.
You
know
III
would
prefer
to
have
this
be.
This
is
what
we
expect
from
people
and
then
separately,
we
could
say,
and
here's
how
you
know
somewhere
in
the
moderation
replay.
That
might
actually
specifically
say
how
you
would
how
this
this,
but
part
of
the
process,
would
be
handled.
Yeah.
H
And
so
I
mean
like
maybe
maybe
one
thing
that
we
can
add
in
here
would
be
something
that
just
says
explicitly
like
you
know
like
when
it
appears
that
people
are
failing
to
live
up
to
what
is
that
lined
in
this
document?
Please
refer
to
the
moderation
policy
as
to
how
to
you
know,
bring
that
up.
I
can
make
a
language
suggestion.
B
B
K
H
B
H
I
can
introduce
this
I'm
gonna
drop
them
to
chat
a
link
perfect.
The
language
is
really
rough.
It
was
just
like
trying
to
get
some
ideas
on
paper,
so
one
of
the
push
backs
that
were
put
on
this
document
was
the
document
talks
about
our
vision
and
our
mission
and
our
values,
but
these
haven't
actually
been
defined.
This
was
like
you
know,
fish
rock
and
some
other
people
were
pointing
out.
H
It
would
be
an
William
or
plenty
of
we
should
have
that
outline
first,
so
I
took
a
stab
at
you
know
what
what
good
values
of
the
project
look
like
and
I
can
kind
of
read
this.
It
starts
with
an
opening
paragraph
on
the
nets
and
goals
it's
at
its
core,
no
genius,
as
a
collection
of
people
working
towards
a
shared
goal,
improving
people's
lives.
This
can
be
done
through
making
software
faster
can
be
done
through
making
empathetic
api's.
It
can
be
done
by
making
a
reliable
platform.
H
Now
I
recognize
that
a
lot
of
these
things
that
I
brought
up
are
very
social
and
not
focused
as
much
on
technology,
but
I
also
do
feel
pretty
passionately
that,
when
we're
talking
about
our
values,
these
are
human
values
and
about
like
the
values
that
we
have
between
each
other,
not
necessarily
the
values
of
software
rod
had
mentioned
in
one
of
the
issues.
I'd
have
to
dig
it
up
where
we
were
talking
about
having
the
values
that
a
core
value
could
be
around
shipping,
a
solid
product
material.
That's
a
great
idea
regarding
the
ecosystem.
H
What
I
think
probably
makes
sense
is
to
take
this
talk,
which
is
in
markdown
right
now,
throw
it
into
a
Google
Doc
share
it
at
the
TSE,
and
we
can
just
start
hacking
on
it
and
making
suggestions,
but
I'd
be
really
interested
for
those
who
are
just
kind
of
like
you
know,
hurt
my
initial
brain
dump.
If
there's
anything
that
stands
out
as
problematic
or
if,
in
general,
there's
things
that
seem
like
non-starters
on
this.
H
I
can
do
that.
I
just
didn't
want
to
open
a
PR
if
it
was
gonna
just
be
like
not
something
that
even
had
legs,
but
if
people
here
as
a
start,
I
want
to
do
like
the
last
paragraph
was
actually
kind
of
just
me
being
silly
at
night,
where
I
like
wrote
about
you
I'll
do
another
I'll
do
another
pass
on
it.
H
H
H
B
A
H
H
I
A
A
H
That's
a
really
great
idea
too,
because
that
can
help
compartmentalize
it
and
like
this
document
can
be
very
much
about
the
overall
shared
values,
the
TSC
values,
docx
or
a
release,
values
that
can
focus
on
more
technical
values
that
are
specific
to
the
team
and
what
that
matters
and
could
help
us
like
avoid
kind
of
conflating
them
in
this
process.
Yeah.
H
E
You
know
it
might
be
the
case
where
we
have
a
possibly
bug
on
25
depending
is
only
movie
or
the
operating
system.
Probably-
and
there
was
some
discussion
between
myself
also
with
Colin
and
James
on,
to
try
to
solve
that
bug,
but
we
have
no
idea
what
what's
going
on
in
there.
So
there
was
a
question
of
who
should
we
actually
stop
supporting
at
some
point
in
the
future.
D
D
Then
about
seven
hours,
five
is
that
is
that
the
build
working
group,
the
release
folks
or
someone
have
been
actually
a
pretty
sure.
It's.
The
build
work
group
have
been
talking
about
updating
our
building
MD
to
indicate
whether
or
not
you
know
what
gets
supported
when
how
and
what
versions
and
and
I'm
pretty
sure
that
dropping
sin.
Os5
support
is
like
the
thing
that
keeps
getting
talked
about,
and
so
it
seems
like.
D
Evolution
on,
and
so
maybe
if
we
can
get
some
if
we
can
have
a
build
working
group
centric
or
an
LPS
working
group,
centric
TSC
meeting
next
time
or
something
we
can,
we
can
maybe
answer
the
question
of.
Do
we
still
need
to
run
sent
to
us
five?
Sir?
Do
you
just
need
to
run
it
on
B
for
X
and
B
6x,
and
things
like
that,
so
I'll
stop
now
I,
don't
know
if
that
actually
adds
any
value,
but
that's
that
was
my
take.
D
I
D
B
B
D
B
D
D
D
B
D
F
F
B
F
G
F
E
D
B
E
It
by
the
way
we
I
just
blend
that
we
have
just
landed
a
fix
that
makes
ci
happy.
Okay,
pointed
it
doesn't
fix
them,
but
they
because
the
test
is
not
related
to
the
close
event
being
hired
or
not.
It's
related
to
some
state
of
variable.
So
it's
completely
unrelated
to
the
problem
that
we
are
experiencing.
Okay,
so
it
makes
the
test
pass,
but
it
if
that
is
the
bug
in
ten
toes,
is
still
possibly
there.
Okay,
like
it,
there
is
probably
a
bug
lurking
somewhere
around
the
close
event
of
HP.
We.
E
H
Just
a
recap:
we
talked
in
a
previous
meeting
about
landing
6.1
on
LTS,
and
you
know
there
are
mixed
feelings
at
string.
Committee
level
only
kicked
it
off
to
the
LTS
working
group
and
the
LTS
working
group
reached
consensus
to
land
six
point
one
into
LTS,
so
the
first
part
of
this
is
to
just
let
everyone
know
that
we
reached
it.
Give
everyone
one
last
opportunity
to
push
back
and
if
not,
we
should
land
six
point
one
this
week
and
be
the
plan
from
a
release.
H
H
H
L
So
there
was
a
vulnerability
that
caused
in
escape
analysis.
That's
there
in
six
point
one
six
point:
two,
an
older
word
ever
be
it,
and
because
of
that
remote
code,
execution
with
a
bit
of
foam,
that
optimization
was
disabled
in
six
point
one.
So
it's
not
a
high
high
impact
vulnerability
for
node,
because
the
trust
model
is
different,
but
but
that
optimization
is
known
buggy.
L
H
And
so
building
on
that
there
was
the
discussion
and,
if
Anna
still
around
Anna
did
an
analysis
and
it
seemed
to
be
that
we
could
get
6.2
to
be
a
bi
compatible
26.0,
which
is
the
ABI
that
we've
currently
got
on.
8
we'd
want
to
do
some
experiments
and
figure
out
if
it's
even
possible
to
get
it
working
basically
like
we
already
had
like
some
pushback
on
6.1
and
6
to
is
still
not
even
stable.
H
We
wanted
to
just
get
it
out
there
that
we
may
want
to
consider
doing
this
even
once
it's
an
LC,
yes,
6.2
is
going
to
fix
the
confirmations.
Let
me
see
from
turning
off
the
escape
analysis
and
I
think
you
bet
it
comes
with,
and
this
is
just
the
bonus
as
it
comes
with
the
import
as
a
function,
which
is
a
huge
boon
for
the
ability
of
a
px
to
be
like
Ford
compatible
with
whatever
we
do,
with
es
modules.
H
With
that
being
said,
like
I
want
to
make
it
really
clear
that
you
know
I
know
that
there
was
already
pushback
on
having
6.1
we're
not
trying
to
like
push
this
through.
For
any
other
reason
than
like
straight
up,
we're
gonna
have
performance
regressions,
and
so
we
it's
possible
to
get
it
running
on
suits
if
there
was
a
path
board.
H
A
H
B
Like
these
are
kind
of
like
the
reluctance
of
moving
up
in
the
past
was
because
of
these
kinds
of
things
which
you
know
continue.
Unfortunately,
we've
now
got
one
we're
actually
pulling
up
to
the
new
one.
There
was
a
risk
of
a
breakage.
We've
got
the
breakage.
Now
that's
saying
we
need
to
move
up
even
further
right.
This.
H
B
H
H
L
A
L
A
L
I,
don't
think
that's
a
fair
argument,
because
anything
in
years
there's
lots
of
things
changing
in
Viet
and
we
don't
make
judgment
on
what
exactly
is
changing
and
whether
we
want
that
in
node
or
not
so
so
question
it's
a
so.
The
new
scape
analysis
is
done
efficiently,
supported
the
scape
analysis
in
v8,
the
old
one
was
implemented
a
long
while
ago.
It
has
been
enabled
and
disabled
a
few
times
because
of
bugs
and
that's
why
they
completely
rewrote
a
new
version.
L
H
E
E
L
L
Because
it's
known
to
be
buggy
and
we
Soviet
EU
has
tried
enabling
the
old
scape
analysis
a
bunch
of
times
and
it
kept
getting
disabled
because
there
were
bugs
that
would
show
up.
So
it
is
nobody.
No
one
crash
that
will
that
exist.
There
would
be
a
few
more
that
I
think
will
pop
up
as
we
go
through
the
years,
because
we
need
to
support
our
guests
for
a
very
long
time.
H
We're
getting
right
now!
You
think
that
it's
fair,
that
we
move
forward
with
6.1
for
now,
because
and
that
we
want
to
do
this,
and
so
Matteo
I
hear
what
you're
saying
about
delaying
notes.
Yes,
I!
Don't
hey
I,
don't
think
that
we're
gonna
get
buy-in
from
people
underlaying
LTS,
because
we've
already
be
on
board.
I.
Do
think
that
there's
a
question
about
whether
or
not
this
could
land,
yes
back
to
the
LTS
working
group
again,
but
it
just
doesn't
feel
like
we
have
consensus
when
we
only
have
10
minutes
left.
B
B
L
Think
we
will
be
better
off
still
it's
it's
mostly.
The
some
of
the
es6
features
that
were
dependent
on
this
I
think
it
would
be
I
think
would
be
good
to
have
escaped
analysis,
but
I,
don't
think
it
would
be
the
end
of
the
world
from
a
performance
perspective.
It
would
be
good
to
get
some
feedback
based
on
an
RC
from
real-world
code
on
how
this
this
this
affects
how
we
useful
to
get
right.
B
Cuz
I
can
see
you
know
if,
if
we
put
it
into
knowing,
for
example,
so
we
go
with
six
one.
Four
eight,
if
we
put
it
into
nine,
for
example,
in
nine,
was
so
much
faster
that
people
were
noticing
and
saying
hey.
You
know
we
need
that
extra
twenty
percent
or
whatever
you
might
make
a
good
case
right
or
if
no,
if
nobody
notices
it
may
just
be
well,
then
let's
just
wait
till
ten
right
speaking.
H
The
only
things
being
difficult
with
that
would
be
like
maintaining
eighty
like
the
to
release
branches,
because
any
time
that
we're
floating
the
patches
we'd
have
to
like
manage
those
on
both
release
branches
and
then
from
like
a
user
experience
and
discoverability
standpoint
like
we'd,
have
to
kind
of
redo
the
website
to
be
able
to
offer
those
and
then
how
nvm
actually
like
it
just
kind
of
breaks.
My
brain
a
little
bit
thinking
about
how
we
manage
that,
it's
not
to
say
immediately,
know
just
more
like
those
are
things
that
I
want
to
hear.
B
And
then
the
flipside
of
like,
if
it's,
if
it's
so
much
faster
than
we
really
need
to
figure
out,
you
know
if
we
can
do
something.
If
it's,
if
it's
something
that's
yeah,
it's
a
bit
faster.
But
it's
you
know,
you
know
it's
it's
we're
still
faster
than
we
were
before
and
it's
a
little
bit
faster
than
you
might
say.
Well,
okay,
the
extra
work
isn't
worth
it
but
agreed
it's
it's
worth
discussing
to
figure
out
what
the
right
answer
is.
A
B
H
B
B
B
Okay,
let's,
let's
talk
about
setting
that
up
the
other
one
was
the
working
group
update
and
somehow
I
think
I
may
have
not
miss
communicating
with
Gibson
either
he
needed
the
number
and
I
didn't
give
it
to
him,
because
I
didn't
see
the
information
or
we
crossed
wires.
So
I'll
roll
that
over
to
the
next
meeting
as
well.