►
Description
https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/160
Bryan Hughes - https://github.com/nebrius (TSC)
Colin Ihrig - https://github.com/cjihrig (TSC)
Jeremiah Senkpiel - https://github.com/Fishrock123 (TSC)
Rod Vagg - https://github.com/rvagg (TSC)
Bert Belder - https://github.com/piscisareus (TSC)
Josh Gavant - https://github.com/joshgav (observer/Microsoft)
William Kapke - https://github.com/williamkapke (observer)
Anna Henningson - https://github.com/addaleax (observer/CTC)
Michael Dawson - https://github.com/mhdawson (observer/CTC)
Mikeal Rogers - https://github.com/mikeal (observer/NF)
A
This
is
sort
of
too
hard
to
move
forward
with,
but
we've
got
it
back
on
the
interior
agenda
again
and
moving
nvm
into
the
foundation
back
on
the
agenda
again
today
there
has
been
some
movement
on
on
doing
discussion
on
that
one.
So
we'll
have
that
discussion
again
today.
Let's
just
get
straight
into
the
meeting.
A
Get
these
meetings
to
admit,
least,
minutes
done.
We
agreed
to
put
out
an
announcement
to
the
new
JS
collaborators
for
active
kindled
collaborators
who
need
financial
help
getting
to
North
the
no
direct
North
America
Michael
Dawson
agreed
to
put
together
a
draft
for
this.
In
the
current
thread
there
you
go
Michael
Dawson,
that's
on
you.
A
C
A
C
A
So
folding
tsc
into
the
CTC
I
would
but
my
thoughts
about
this
are
that
which
we
should
try
and
come
up
with
some
options
for
how
this
would
work.
That's
that's
the
real
thing
that
this
is
depending
on,
because
the
concerns
are
around
the
practicalities
of
how
it
work,
how
we
will
remain
an
efficient
decision-making
body
and
you
know
not
get
bogged
down
in
with
people
wanting
to
involve
themselves
at
the
last
minute
and
maybe
even
even
having
to
pass
on
the
decisions
to
the
broader
tsc.
All
that's
why
stuff?
A
So
what
we
need
here
is
proposals
for
models
and
then,
if
and
then
flush
up,
it's
still,
if
there's
any
disagreements
about
those
models,
if
they
did
solve
any
problem,
the
problems
that
still
remain
its
objections
and
I
know
there's
their
objections
and
Jeremiah
you're.
One
of
the
most
vocal
of
the
people
objecting
to
this
Jeremiah
can
I.
A
B
A
B
B
So
that
would
mean
they
would
still
go
through
like
the
trial
period
of
whatever,
where
you're
joining
the
call
for
a
couple
weeks
to
get
like
the
feel
of
things,
and
then
you
get
like
added
on
to
the
tsc
or
ctt
or
whatever
I
think
like
that's
kind
of
a
better
way,
because
then
you
have
like
I,
don't
know
it's
pretty
much
like
the
same
structure
right.
So
I
have.
D
C
C
I
was
going
to
say,
you
know,
I
agree
that
we
need
some
separation
for
the
pse
functions.
We've
been
doing
to
have
an
effective
decision-making.
I
am
a
little
concerned
that,
like
the
current
structure,
is
that
you
know
the
tsc
actually
has
the
responsibility
and
delegates
to
this
vtc,
and
so,
unless
you,
you
know,
if
you
combine
them
together
and
then
figure
out
a
way
to
make
a
subgroup,
you
know
be
able
to
make
the
decisions
effectively.
C
It
removes
the
issue
of
well,
there
are
two
different
groups
and
what,
if
you
know
the
group,
the
CTC,
which
is
where
you
know
I,
think
there's
been
broader
and
more
history
in
terms
of
people
that
have
joined
in
all
that
you
know
what,
if
they
disagreed
with
what
the
tts
II
wanted
to
do.
I
I
think
today.
There
might
be
some
surprise
that
the
tsc
would
make
the
final
decision
so.
D
I
kind
of
went
back
and
I
was
trying
to
find
out
what
problem
this
is
trying
to
solve,
and
the
only
thing
I
saw
was
really
a
comment
of.
How
do
we
make
sure
that
the
tsc
stays
aligned
with
the
CTC,
and
it
seems
like
a
lot
of
what
ifs
going
on
and
I
think
the
beauty
of
what
I
admire
most
about
the
node
project?
Is
it
it's
like
a
bottom-up
organization,
and
so
like
TSE
might
on
paper?
B
D
B
Michael
Dawson's
welted
to
address
so
saying
that
Michael
Dawson
said
like
actually
just
a
little
bit
more
general,
like
the
the
separate,
like
the
sorry,
the
explaining
issue
of
like
having
two
committees
we're
still
going
to
have,
because
there
will
be
like
an
administrative
team
that
is
going
to
be
fully
delegated.
It's
gonna
have
meetings
someone's
gonna
need
to
explain
that
it
makes
the
decisions
to
like
spend
funds
or
whatever
right.
E
What
if
we,
if
we
establish
the
baseline
for
tsc
and
then
have
open
up
the
option
again
for
ctc,
explaining
this
background,
that
the
tsc
is
ultimately
on
top.
But
as
William
said,
it's
maybe
doesn't
matter
in
fact,
and
then
let
the
CTC
members
again
choose
if
they
want
to
be
want
to
continue
being
on
the
tsc
now
and
then
reset
from
there
and
like.
In
other
words,
you
get
a
one-time
choice
so
that
you
can't
jump
in
yeah.
E
C
Can
choose
so
another
thing:
they'll
be
excluded,
but
it's
to
continue
to
say
well
if
I
want
to
be
able
to
influence
decisions
at
that
level,
which
is
fire
I
have
to
continue.
I
have
to
be
involved
in
the
day-to-day.
Will
I
go
here,
we're
going
to
support.
You
know,
travel
funding,
the
kind
of
things
we're
breaking
at
all.
We.
C
B
C
B
C
F
F
Yeah
yeah
I
think
that's
I,
think
really
kind
of
one
of
the
big
issues
that
we're
attempting
to
solve
with
this
is
that
there's
not
a
lot
of
communication
between
the
CTC
and
tsc
and
I.
Don't
think
voting
is
really
going
to
like,
like
changing
voting
rules.
I,
don't
think
it's
actually
gonna
help
with
that,
because
they
don't.
We
look
at
the
things
that
we
vote
on.
F
They
are
typically
travel
funding,
which
is
something
that
I
think
most
people
just
won't
care
about,
like
the
kinds
of
things
that
people
will
care
about,
the
tsc
is
responsible
for
we
kind
of
do
a
consensus
model,
which
means
they
can
already
participate
and
being
at
esc.
Member
doesn't
actually
give
them
any
advantage
in
that.
If
that
makes
sense,
so
I
yeah
right
good,
go.
G
F
And
also
I,
just
kind
of
want
to
add
picking
back
out
of
something
general
I
said
it
will
end
up
with
the
structure.
That's
fairly
similar
I
mean
I,
think
we
could
probably
make
it
a
little
bit
of
the
one
currently
is,
but
my
concern
is
that
it's
going
to
take
a
lot
of
time
in
order
to
make
this
change.
This
is
a
pretty
substantial
change.
You
know
this
is
probably
gonna
require
lycra
chartering
with
the
board
negotiations
with
them,
and
it's
gonna
take
up
a
lot
of
people's
time.
No
I'm
not
front.
C
H
So
like
to
be,
to
be
perfectly
honest,
the
changing
this
in
that
direction.
It
brings
us
more
in
line
with
the
Charter
than
we
are
now.
We've
actually
sort
of
bye-bye
wording
things
in
a
really
particular
way.
We
were
able
to
make
this
split
under
the
current
charter,
but
the
current
charter
actually
describes
something
much
more
like
emerged.
Ct
CTS
see
right.
C
H
I
mean
essentially
the
way
that
we
worded
it
was
that
the
TSE
is
delegating
the
responsibility
of
core
to
this
group
so
that
we
were
still
in
line
with
the
Charter,
because
it's
still
you
know
the
TSD
is
responsibility
to
deal
with
core
they
just
you
know
off
loaded
it
onto
this.
Other
group,
Oh
wouldn't
need
any
kind
of
charter
change.
That
I
can
think
of.
H
Some
at
some
point,
the
inclusivity
working
group
was
doing
some
of
that
and
for
people
to
jump
in
and
have
this
very
strong
opinion
when
they
haven't
put
in
the
rest
of
the
work
and
maintaining
that
and
taking
responsibility
for
it.
It
one
is
to
motivating
the
people
that
are
taking
responsibility
for
it
and
to
it
really
distracts
and
bogs
down
a
lot
of
the
work
in
the
necessary
process.
That
sounds
like
a
reason
to
keep
the
tsc
and
my.
D
H
H
H
A
And
we
actually
see
that
in
in
the
CTC
you're
ready
glad
we
have.
We
have
these
decisions
made
at
the
ctc
level,
where
discussion
has
taken
place
on
github.
It
comes
to
the
CTC
for
further.
You
know
for
did
final
decision
making
people
are
entering
into
that
now,
where
they
haven't
had
the
history
of
that
issue.
So
already
we
have
this
problem
of
people
not
being
engaged,
but
wanting
wanting
the
ability
to
make
decisions,
even
after
not
being
involved
in
the
history
of
things.
The.
C
We
might,
but
if
that
was
if
we
didn't
need
like,
if
we're
willing
to
just
close
it
in
the
issue
by
basically,
if
you
don't
comment
in
the
issue,
you
don't
get
a
say,
we
wouldn't
have
that
problem
right
so
either
we
want
to
bring
it
to
the
larger
group
to
get
a
final
decision
or
we
should
say
we're
going
to
push
the
decision
down
to
you
know.
No,
we
don't
need
update
this.
C
A
F
Just
exactly
run
well,
I'm,
just
a
point
to
make
that
a
William
actually
found
this
pretty
recently.
Is
that
a
lot
of
these
views
on
yeah?
How
do
you
get
into
the
tsc
turned
out
to
not
really
be
to
have
been
based
on
just
liking
of
previous,
because
experience
and
things
like
that?
But
what
the
actual
Charter
says
is
that
anyone
can
become
a
member
like
you,
don't
actually
have
to
come
to
the
CTC
I
mean
hypothetically.
Anyone
could
just
like
open
an
issue
saying
like
hey
I
want
to
join
and
then.
A
No,
but
the
holdup
has
been
the
reason
that
the
reason
I'm
personally
I've
been
holding
that
whole
process
up
is
simply
because
we
set
up
this.
The
you
know
the
new
structure,
with
the
idea
of
having
this
expensive
umbrella
project
thing
going
on,
where
we
have
multiple
sub-projects
and
we
go
up
governing
them.
But
since
we're
not
doing
that
anymore,
there's
all
these
questions
about
how
what
is
the
relevance
of
this
group
now?
What
is
it
actually
trying
to
achieve
and
there
and
who
should
be
on?
C
I
definitely
agree,
that's
an
issue
in
that.
You
know
to
me
it's
like,
especially
it's
especially
important,
because
this
group,
based
on
what's
written,
you
know
the
CTC
reports
to
them
and
I
think
we
have
a
very
clear
sort
of
history
and
pattern
for
how
people
get
there
in
terms
of
contribution,
but
until
we
want
to
be
careful
in
putting
another
level
above
that
that
may
defeat
that
perfect
right.
D
Also,
we
we
just
we
just
kind
of
settled
on
what
is
a
defining
node
core,
and
so
what
is
the
stuff
outside
of
no
core,
then
who
is
overseeing
that
and
I
I
was
under
the
impression,
that's
kind
of
where
the
TSE
ultimately
falls
in.
If
there's
nobody
else,
it's
like
a
de
facto
thing,
but
now
we
it
like
if
we
combine-
and
we
have
to
address-
who
owns
the
rest
of
that
stuff
now
I
think.
H
Also
like,
first
of
all,
there
are
some
things
that
we
could
break
out
from
under
the
CTC
that
are
there
right
now.
Also
I
will
point
out
that,
in
the
latest
kind
of
version
of
the
recommendations
for
the
future
of
inclusivity,
it
calls
for
creating
a
a
community
group,
basically
at
the
the
quote-unquote
same
level
as
the
tsc
assuming
the
TSE
is
mostly
kind
of
involved
in
core.
H
But
if
you
maintain
that
separation
and
core
is
on
the
CTC,
then
you
could
see
that
group
basically
operating
with
the
tsc
and
at
that
level,
rather
than
at
the
core
level
and
there's
there's
a
couple
other
things
kind
of,
maybe
in
the
pipeline
that
the
foundation
will
take
on
that
are
on
the
technical
governance
side
that
aren't
specifically
about
core.
So.
H
Date
would
report
directly
to
the
board,
but
they
would
want
to
be
in
tight
collaboration
with
the
tsc
as
well.
They
will
upload
this
way.
They
want
to
be
in
tight
collaboration
with
whoever
is
running
the
technical
governance
side
of
the
foundation,
not
right,
you
know,
and-
and
these
are
outside
of
core
and
and
in
fact
like
people
that
are
mostly
interested
in
core-
should
really
not
participate
in
those
decisions.
H
A
Well,
let
me
leave
pose
a
question
then,
to
see
if
we
could
shake
out
any
issues
here
that
we're
not
focusing
on
if
we
were
to
fix
up
the
membership
crossover
between
the
CDC
and
the
tsc,
so
that
we
could
get
interested
parties
from
the
CTC
automatically
onto
the
tsc
in
a
way
that
solves
our
decision-making.
You
know
concerns
about
who
were
dropping
in
and
out
if
we
could
figure
that
out.
H
H
C
A
So
individuals
that
are
showing
up
each
week
and
that
have
a
an
aptitude
and
an
interest
in
this
administrative
work
I
want
to
find
a
way
to
get
them
on
here.
That
is,
that
is
logical,
and
if
so,
if
we
solve
that-
and
we
have-
we
have
that
path,
but
we
also
have
a
way
to
get
other
people
on
and
it
makes
sense
to
bring
William
and
Josh
on
and
that's
great,
but
are
there
any
other
concert
real
concerns
about
having
these
two
separate
groups
that
remain
that
we're
trying
to
solve
it?.
C
E
Going
to
say
that
that's
kind
of
what
it
sounded
like
Michael
Rogers
was
getting
at
that
there
are
I,
don't
know
what
exactly
was
referring
to.
I
could
guess.
Maybe
education
related
and
stuff,
like
that
things
that
wouldn't
tie
to
core
would
tie
the
tsc
and
that
might
like.
If
we
don't
have
that,
then
it's
like
okay.
A
No
tip
no
define
no
call
was
about
defining
the
domain
of
our
activity
under
the
technical
group
that
was
really
about
limiting
our
what
it
is
that
we
are
delegated
to
take
responsibility
for
from
the
board
and
anything
outside
of
that
we
could
take
on,
but
we
would
have
to
have
that
discussion
with
the
board.
So
it's
not
about
CT
CTS
see
it's
about.
What
is
the
domain
here
of
our
technical
activity?
I
see.
F
H
F
I'll
just
say,
anecdotally,
just
kind
of
an
interesting
thing
to
add
I'm
at
note
confidently
in
no
come
to
you,
you
know,
I
gave
a
talk
in
which
I
talked
about
the
structure.
The
foundation
and
I
spend
some
time
finding
the
difference
between
the
tsc
and
the
CTC
least
UL
Quorn,
to
my
understanding
of
it
and
people
actually
really
seem
to
get
it
and
they're
like
oh,
ok,
I
get
it
now.
F
A
Back
to
Williams
capsular
back
to
Williams
point
as
well
about
how
the
way
it
actually
works.
Now
we
need
to
reinforce
that,
which
is
that
the
the
board
exists
to
serve
the
TSE.
The
tsc
exists
to
serve
the
CTC,
that
they're
not
there
to
govern
one
another
they're
there
to
support
and
sort
of
you
know
be
the
the
thing
that
holds
them
up
and
and
and
lets
them
do
what
they
do.
That's.
H
D
A
It
does,
and
that's
one
of
the
interesting
things
about
this-
that
if
we
accept
ibly
exists,
surf
at
ctc
and
the
CTC
tells
us
know,
we
want
you
to
do
this
thing
and
we
send
that
we're
not
going
to
do
it.
That
creates
an
interesting
situation
in
itself
that
sort
of
illustrative
of
the
problems
here.
So
so
our
role
here
now
in
discussing
this
is,
if
we
are
talking
outside
into
saying.
Okay
well
having
the
two
groups
make
sense,
we
need
to
go
back
to
the
CDC
and
say
here's
what
we
think
I
do.
A
You
still
have
problems
with
this.
If
we
can
solve
these
problems
because
I've
actually
tried
to
pull
the
concerns
out
of
the
teeth,
there's
a
CTC,
it's
been
on
their
agenda
for
a
few
weeks
now,
I
haven't
been
in
all
the
meetings
and
at
the
last
meeting
yesterday,
I
I
raised
it
again
and
I
said.
If
you
have
concerns-
or
you
know
if
there
are
like,
we
were
aware
of
some
of
the
concerns
mainly
voiced
by
Jeremiah,
but
if
you
have
additional
concerns,
please
put
them
in
that
thread.
A
Colin
who
opened
the
issue.
Do
that
because
he
was
mainly
been
hearing,
people
say
this
and
he
didn't
actually
have
any
specific
concerns.
He's
trying
to
solve.
I
know.
Ben
has
has
some
strong
thoughts
on
here,
but
I
haven't
heard
justification
for
it.
So
we've
I've
tried
gently
to
pull
out
concerns
and
I
haven't
seen
them
come
out
other
than
really
Jeremiah,
but
sorry
Jeremih
on
the
other
end
of
not
wanting
to
merge
them.
C
A
So
they
think
we
need
to
actually
do
that
work
now
of
saying:
look
we
okay!
If
we,
if
we
agree
here
that
we
don't
think
it's
it's
going
to
happen,
we
don't
think
it
makes
sense
which
sounds
like
we
might
be
talking
us
elves
into.
If
we
say
look,
we
don't
think
this
makes
sense,
and
here
the
ways
the
things
we'd
like
to
solve.
What
are
we,
and
what
are
we
not
addressing
here
that
you
have
concerns
about?
Is
there
anything
remaining.
F
Yeah
I
think
that
sounds
like
a
really
solid
idea
in
general
I'm,
just
a
big
fan
of
you
know.
I
I
feel
like
with
this
whole
purging,
CT,
CTS
C
and
a
bit
we've
sort
of
jumped
to
solution
without
really
defining
the
problem.
A
lot-
and
you
know,
there's
definitely
r
yeah
I'm,
not
exactly
sure
what
it
is.
F
I'm
very
skeptical
emerging
right
all
right
now
too,
but
that's
because
my
understanding
of
what
the
problems
are
like
I'm,
not
sure
that
the
solution
will
solve
what
my
understanding
of
the
problems
are,
but
I
also
accept
that
binding
on
the
problems
is
probably
not
accurate,
so
yeah.
Maybe
this
is
something
that
would
be
good
to
bring
up
at
the
club
or
something
to
know
it
interactive.
You
know
we
can
all
kind
of
sit
in
the
same
room
right.
F
C
I
think
that's
not
that's.
A
good
idea
is
a
way
to
get
people
to
voice
problems.
I
right,
I'm
not
sure
like
from
my
perspective,
I,
don't
know
that
I've
heard
people
voiced
concrete
problems,
but
I
think
it's
more
along
the
lines
of
you
know.
Why
does
it
need
to
be
different
right?
It's
not
that
there's
trying
to
solve
a
problem.
It's
just
people
see
no
reason
why
it's
not
just
one
body
yeah.
I
A
I
think
yeah
I
think
one
of
the
things
had
been
is
he's
still
a
member
of
the
tsc,
but
I
don't
think
he's
willing
to
let
go
of
membership
because
technically
the
tsc
still
has
enough
power
to
take
the
technical
organization
in
a
direction
that
it
may
not
want
to
go
so
I
think
that's
a
real
problem
and
I'd
really
like
to
solve
that
problem.
So
that's
the
rest
of
that's
the
connection
issue
between
the
two
groups.
No
I.
I
I
H
H
Think
another
thing
that
we
shouldn't
discount
as
well
is
that
board
representation
is
tied
to
the
tsc
and
you
know
if
they
want
to
get
things
to
the
board
or
they
want
to
feel
like
they're
connected
to
the
board.
Whoever
is
in
that
role
or
if
we
end
up
splitting
the
rules
like
we
talked
about
earlier.
Those
people
need
to
remain
in
contact
with
the
CTC
and
the
CTC
needs
to
have
like
that.
C
That
was
what
I
was
trying
to
get
it
at
the
beginning,
which
I,
don't
think
maybe
I
didn't
get
it
across.
Is
that
I
think
the
concern
is
going
to
be
because
of
the
tsc
being
above
the
sea
via
theorists?
If
the
tsc
was
a
group
that
their
powers
were
delegated
from
the
TC
TC,
then
there
shouldn't
be
the
concern
that
you
know
the
TSE
can
take
the
technical
direction
in
the
wrong
way
right.
It's
because
they
will
los
dedos
delegated
the
subset
of
things.
C
The
administrative
set
of
things
that
you
know
the
technical
people
don't
want
to
get
involved
into
into
this
subgroup.
But
if
that
subgroup
starts
to
you
know
not
line
up
with
the
bigger
group,
it
can
be
pulled
back,
whereas
the
current
structure
doesn't
allow
that
right
and
for
if
you
want
to
make
sure
that
you're
in
that
that
sort
of
decision
making
process
you
have
to
go
into
the
one
where
you
know
the
decisions,
the
day-to-day
stuff.
C
F
A
couple
just
kind
of
quick
thoughts.
You
know
going
back
to
the
modeling
aspect
of
this.
Is
you
know
we
could?
There
is
already
kind
of
a
model
in
place
that
maybe
we
might
want
to
investigate
NASA
relationship
between
the
board
and
the
tsc.
You
know
there's
certain
restrictions
on
how
that
works.
You
know
the
board
is
explicitly
not
allowed
to
make
like
technical
decisions.
For
example,
you
know.
Maybe
we
want
to
look
into
modeling
the
relationship
between
the
tsc
of
a
CTC
the
same
way.
F
The
relationship
is
modeled
between
the
board
and
the
tsc
and
there's
lots
of
other
things
we
could
do
to
you
know
to,
for
example-
and
you
know,
let's
assume,
that
the
CTC
says
that
representation
on
the
board
isn't
concerned.
We
could
always
open
up
voting
for
the
chairperson
to
the
tsc
and
the
CTC
or
even
all
nodejs
foundation,
individual
members,
yeah
yeah,
there's
a
lot
of
ways
that
we
can
rework
things
to.
You
know
address
these
issues
yeah.
It's.
A
A
matter
of
pulling
out
all
the
concerns
we
got
to
figure
out
what
the
concerns
are
and,
and
maybe
the
people
that
are
saying
that
that
are
you
know
most
vocal
here,
don't
even
know
what
their
concerns
and
and
just
the
fact
that
there's
this
instinctual
objection
to
what's
going
on
suggests
that
we
just
haven't
got
things
right.
It
just
doesn't
seem
right,
but
we
need
to
figure
out
what
that
meet.
What
that
actually
means
like.
F
That
fine
and
I
think
that
that
in
start-up
interrupt
Jeremiah
like
that
in
sexual
feeling,
again
something's
not
quite
right
here,
I
mean
I-
think
that's
really
important.
I
think
what
people
have
that
you
know
just
because
they
can't
vocalize
it.
You
know
just
they
haven't
feeling
something:
something's
off
I
think
that
usually
turns
out
to
be
right
and
I.
Think
it's
really
worth
it
for
us
to
really
investigate
and
try
and
figure
out
what
that
is.
F
I
So
can
I
ask
something
sorry
for
a
lot
sitting
out
on
github,
like
I,
think
my
biggest
intuition
telling
me
that
something
quite
right.
It's
the
fact
that
there's
two
groups
that,
like
people,
why
they
overlap
eighty
percent.
The
second
key
one
is
like
the
boss
of
the
other.
You
know,
I
with
regard
to
I
mean
I,
understand
that
there
we
are
consensus
driven
and
like
I,
don't
know
the
TSE
serves
the
CD
cassette.
Rabbit
just
seems
like
it
kind
of
like
a
pointless
thing.
I
like
his
work
again
for
me,
are.
H
We
are,
we
did
I,
think
that
we're
kind
of
dancing
around
an
issue
a
little
bit
like
like.
There
has
never
been
a
point
in
time
where
the
TSE
said
hey.
This
is
this
is
what
word
this
is
what
we're
doing
like
or
told
the
core
what
to
do
or
told
us.
You
see
what
to
do
like.
That's
never
really
happened.
H
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
fear
that
you
know
if
the
CTC
spins
up
or
charter
is
a
community
group
or
a
group
that
basically
does
things
like
you
know:
organization-wide
moderation
or
organization-wide
codes
of
conduct,
that
that
would
be
something
the
CTC
would
have
to.
Essentially
they
would
be
delegating
that
authority
and
that's
probably
going
to
need
to
happen
like
for
a
bunch
of
reasons
and
there's
I,
don't
think
there's
a
lot
of
getting
out
of
it
and,
if
thats
people's
concerned-
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
address
that
like
direct.
B
A
Yeah,
I
find
type
of
headings
very
useful
still.
I
know
that
a
lot
of
people
don't
like
the
idea.
This
has
never
happened
there
for
some
problem,
but
no
because
it
can
happen,
you
know
they're
dead,
like
we
can
consider
ourselves
the
current
generation
of
this
group.
The
next
generation
might
look
completely
different
and
also
if
we
take
some
parallels
with
what
the
board's
doing
and
what
the
board
could
do.
For
example,
the
board
could
say
to
us:
okay,
we
need
to
all
switch
to
GPL.
A
H
H
I
I
mean
I
think
this
is
actually
a
very
interesting
topic
because
it
begets
the
question
like
where
do
topics
like
this
like,
where
you
know
what
license
will
use?
Where
would
it
actually?
Why
should
it
be
discussed
and
grow
my
perspective,
although
a
lot
of
people
that
are
in
the
CDC
would
have
maybe
an
opinion.
I
It
it
is
not
really
the
appropriate
place,
but
I
would
also
feel
that
doing
that
in
the
board
is
not
the
appropriate
place
or
only
in
the
board,
because
then
it
becomes
I,
don't
know
a
sort
of
purely
the
wishes
of
a
big
company.
So
I
think
it's
the
cs.
He
could
have
a
function
where
it
tries
to
do
tackle
all
kinds
of
different
topics
that
are
not
related
to.
You
know
the
pier
technical
details,
but
in
a
way
that
is
accessible
for
community
members
and
not
just
for
like.
I
I'm
saying
community
members
here
as
individuals
and
not
just
for
companies
that
are
represented
on
board
and
either
other
things
other
things
to
consider
when,
for
example,
be
marketing.
You
know
the
whole
like
education
stuff,
and
it's
like
the
truth.
Right
now
is
that
we
are
also
not
discussing
those
things.
I'ma
see.
This
is
very
much
like
it's
so
like.
Okay,
let's
define
ourselves
seems
to
be
the
overarching
topic
for
that
big
come
on
so.
H
I
H
It's
miles
so
he's
like
in
he's
in
the
LTS
working
group
and
he's
in
and
there's
a
lot
of
stuff
that
comes
up
around
releases
that
he's
involved
in
that
it
is
very
important
to
have
him
like
associated
with
the
marketing
efforts,
because
we
tend
to
market
a
lot
of
their
places.
So
I
mean
it's
it's
it's
a
good
person
to
have.
As
that
point
of
contact,
all
I'm
saying
is
that
we
we
don't
want
to
be
too
rigid
in
how
we
structure
you
know.
H
H
Also
in
and
I
will
say
I
do
find
the
hypotheticals
helpful,
but
the
hypotheticals
that
are
that
might
actually
happen
that
we
think
that
are
likely
are
the
ones
that
tend
to
drive
what
people
are
afraid
of.
Mellow
was
saying
with
that
is
that
if
there
are
hypotheticals
that
people
are
actually
worried
about
happening
right
now
in
a
practical
level,
we
should
address
those
directly
not
try
to
skirt
around
it.
By
talking
about
you
know
the
scope
of
authority
for
each
individual
person.
A
They
don't
want
to
have
to
have
more
process
involved
in
what
they're
doing,
and
so
it's
I
think
it's
I
think
it
probably
all
comes
down
through
this,
this
authority
that
is
defined.
So
it's
the
defined
authority.
It's
not
about
actual
things
that
are
happening
or
even
could
happen
in
the
near
future.
It's
that
that
stuff
exists
and-
and
they
don't
want
to-
they-
don't
want
to
have
start
forced
on
them
that
they
have
no
ability
to
impact.
B
A
Yeah,
well,
it's
not
aboard
in
the
sense
of
having
membership
that
comes
from
members,
but
you
know
administrative
functions.
Sort
of
it
is
a
parallel
to
the
board.
You
know
we
exist
to
serve
the
the
group
that
it
technically
below
us,
but
where
they
were
the
facilitators
of
those
things
that
keep
the
machine
going,
that
aren't
strictly
technical.
Oh.
A
A
H
Can
I
think
that
we
should
literally
just
list
the
things
of
the
TSE
or
as
month
before
and
the
things
the
CDC
is
responsible
for
that
they
have
one
hundred
percent
authority
over
an
ownership
over
and
that
that
might
put
to
bed
a
lot
of
the
concerns
that
people
inside
of
the
TC
TC
have
I.
Think
we'll
still
have
a
communication
problem
externally,
where
people
externally
think
the
tsc
is
responsible
for
core.
But
that's
that's
the
next
problem
to
deal
with
once
we,
whatever
consensus
internally,
we
can
message
that
extra
key
well.
C
A
C
I
I
H
H
All
they
can
do
is
essentially
decide
not
to
use
you
so
I
mean
if
inning,
if
the
CDC
decides
to
use
a
different,
build
system
than
what
the
bill
working
group
is
working
on,
they
can
do
that,
but
what
they
can't
do
is
step
into
the
decision-making
process
and
Bill
working
group
tell
them
to
do,
and
similarly,
the
tsc
can't
tell
core
what
to
do.
We
could
just
decide
to
have
a
different
note
core
right,
which
is
just
you
know,
never
gonna
happen.
That
is.
F
Cuz
we
got
it
all
about
the
movie.
You
know,
like
the
board,
could
technically
do
the
same
thing
to
the
tsc
right
yeah.
If
they
could
move
it
to
Java,
exactly
Oh
org,
they
could
be
like.
Oh,
we
don't
like
the
way
the
tsc
is
doing
things
so
we're
just
going
to
dissolve
it
and
create
a
new
body
and
maybe
do
a
fork
or
whatever
every
it's
like.
There's,
always
this
existential
threat
that
the
unit
at
the
top
level
of
the
foundation
the
board
can
rewrite
everything
right.
A
A
H
H
D
A
A
C
E
He
first
asked
if
we
wanted
to
take
the
nvm
into
the
foundation,
and
it's
I
think
it's
clear
from
from
him
throughout
the
thread
that
he
that
he
is
most
interested
in
that
project
itself,
that
exact
repo,
but
we
all
have
gradually
reach
consensus
that
if
we
would
take
in
nvm
it
would
only
be
under
a
greater
mandate
to
to
develop
a
consensus
environment
manager,
runtime
manager
that
everyone
that
everyone
agrees
to
for
the
other,
the
other
stakeholders,
the
other
maintainer
czar
out
there.
Now
we
would
invite
them
in
and
have
them
discuss
as
well.
E
I
think
we've
reached
consensus
on
that
point.
I
we
can
I
guess
we
can
discuss
in
a
minute,
but
assuming
we
have
then
the
next
question
is:
do
we
want
that
role
that
that
management
of
environment
managers
in
the
foundation
I
think
that
Rob?
That's
what
what
you're
getting
at
in
your
in
your
threat?
In
your
comments
yesterday,
and
so
my
last
comment,
which
I
know
was
right
before
this
meeting
so
I,
don't
expect
anyone
to
have
read
it
yet.
E
E
I
think
this
stay
rad
is
that
if
we
can
get
consensus,
perhaps
around
that
just
that
just
posted
into
the
local
thread
here,
if
you
want,
if
we
can
get
consensus
around
that
that,
like
the
core
idea,
I
think
rod
you're,
probably
the
main
the
center.
Actually
at
this
point
that
we
might
be
a
close
second,
okay,
I
and
I
don't
hold
this
that,
like
I
I'm,
putting
up
that
this
is
why
we
should
do
it,
but,
like
I,
totally
understand
the
the
objections.
Oh.
D
So
I
really
I
would
rod
said
about
creating
this
group
to
kind
of
explore
and
find
out
what
what
we
want
to
consider.
Even
it
is
a
good
idea,
and
some
of
you
may
have
noticed
that
I
did
paying
the
end
project
and
also
noticed
and
and
like
I
said
literally
in
minutes,
TJ
web
from
the
end
project
came
and
made
a
comment
and
started
participating
I
mean
that
shows
one
that
you
know.
D
We've
excluded
from
this
conversation,
some
of
the
other
groups
out
there
up
to
this
point
and
also
like,
if
so
fast,
that
he
came,
there's
definitely
a
high
interest
there
and
so
and
then,
shortly
after
that,
we
got
a
comment
from
noticed
as
well.
I
think
that
to
me
shows
that
there's
still
feedback
that's
out
there
and
and
we
should.
We
should
wait
to
hear
what
other
people
have
to
say.
I.
H
Don't
know
how
much
I
care
about
the
feedback
of
people
who
you
know
have
their
own
version
manager
that
they
maintain
in
terms
of
at
a
high
level.
Do
we
take
on
responsibility
for
this
problem
right
I
think
that
we,
we
should
mainly
be
thinking
about
node
users
and
the
install
base,
and
if
we
can
provide
them
a
better
experience
than
they
have
right
now
and
if
we
decide
that
we
want
to
take
on
that
responsibility.
H
H
But
you
know
under
this
group,
do
we
just
allow
anybody
to
bring
in
their
project,
or
do
we
literally
just
say
no
we're
starting
a
new
one,
because
we
have
a
project
that
wants
to
come
into
the
foundation
for
a
variety
of
reasons
and
we're
sort
of
like
holding
that
up
saying
what
we
need
to
figure
out.
This
kind
of
meta
issue.
E
A
I,
have
it
that's
it
essentially,
it's
essentially
what
I'm
asking
for
as
well,
and
I
think
the
william
is
says:
well,
that's
so
so,
instead
of
just
saying
okay,
you
want
to
come
in.
That's
right,
we'll
bring
you
in
so
I
I.
Don't
have
a
big
problem
with
that.
It's
simply
that
it's
putting
that
cart
before
the
horse
and
potentially
opening
the
floodgates
to
things
that
we
may
not.
A
Actually,
we
may
decide
that
we
don't
want
to
be
responsible
for
so
we
have
to
be
clear
that,
yes,
this
is
it
so
we've
defined
our
scope
of
what
we're
responsible
for
this
is
now
a
question
of.
Do
we
want
to
expand
that
scope,
and
so
we
have
to
consider
that
carefully.
Are
we
expanding
our
scope
into
this
area?
If
so,
yes,
great,
let's
do
that.
But
if
we
can't
just
say
okay,
we've
got
a
project
wants
to
come
in,
let's
bring
it
in
if
it
doesn't
fit
within
our
existing
scope.
A
So
my
my
call
was
for
two:
let's
come
up
with
strategy
here:
let's
come
up
with
a
a
some
ideas
about
what
it
is
we're
trying
to
achieve
and
they
don't
have
to
be
perfect
and
they
don't
even
have
to
be
necessarily
things
that
will
that
we
have
to
hold
the
group
to.
But
we
have
to
see
a
that.
There
are
people
that
want
to
invest
their
time
and
energy
in
this,
so
that
we
don't
just
end
up
with
projects
like
no
chip
that
nobody
really
wants
to
own.
A
But
we
have
to
maintain
too,
because
they're
ours
now
and
be
that
it
will
end
up
serving
node
users
better
than
what
they
have
now,
because
it
is
very
possible
that
if
we
reduce
the
competition
in
the
ecosystem
by
promoting
one
project
over
others-
and
we
don't
look
after
it
very
well
that
we
actually
end
up
serving
users
even
worse
than
they
serve
now.
Yeah.
H
I
mean,
like
I,
think
that
one
of
the
things
that's
going
to
get
flushed
out
is
you
know?
What
can
we
do
as
an
organization
better
than
people
in
the
ecosystem
can
do
right
like
for
most
questions?
The
answer
is
that
we
can't
like
we
have
a
better
ecosystem.
I
think
this
is
one
of
the
rare
occurrences
where
we
actually
do
possibly
have
some
real
advantages.
B
I
A
H
Gastrin
we
could
forget,
we
could
fork
nvm,
we
could
add
code
to
the
node
binary
to
do
crazy
stuff
in
switches,
so
that,
like
there's
a
lot
of
ways
in
which
you
could
do
the
version
made
a
bit
different
than
one
that's
shipping.
Now
all
I'm
saying
is
that
the
the
only
organization
that
could
just
make
a
decision
to
who
shipper
version
manager
would
be.
You
know
the
note
2's
foundation
like.
A
That's
not
that's
not
the
question
we're
dealing
with
here
and
nobody
is
actually
formally
proposed
that,
except
as
hypothetical,
so
if
somebody
wants
to
propose
that
don't
do
that
in
the
node.js
node
repo
or
in
the
EPS
repo.
That's,
this
is
not
the
place
for
that.
Go
and
propose
that
elsewhere.
The
proposal
we're
trying
to
do
here
is:
do
we
want
to
take
responsibility
for
nvm?
Are
we
willing
to
accept
this
thing
on
and
own
it?
You
know
once
we
buy
it,
we
are
we're
stuck
with
it.
A
F
Yeah
and
to
talk
about
the
Installer
in
like
possibilities
there
just
I
mean
we
already
kind
of
have
a
model
for
like
how
that
could
be
accomplished
if
someone
wanted
to
and
that's
actually
with
no
chakra
and
that
that
was
like.
That
was
not
even
though
that's
very,
very
tight
integration
with
no
core
that
was
not
undertaken
by
the
note
foundation
directly.
You
know
there
is
a
relationship
there.
F
Now
it's
under
the
CTC,
though
well
it
is
now
but
I
mean
that
there
is
I'm,
saying
there
is
a
model
for
demonstrating
how
this
kind
of
integration
could
occur
without
having
to
bring
it
in
first.
So,
like
I,
don't
think
that's
about
it
or
I.
Don't
think
this
very
strong
argument
for
bringing
and
vmn
well.
H
I
Look
I
mean
that's
an
open
question.
Why
could
we
never
do
that
without
supporting
windows,
but
I
like
I,
still
think
what
you
should
do
is
like
ask
yourselves
a
larger
picture.
First,
like
do
you
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
another
version
manager
would
make
it
a
user's
life
easier.
If
this
is
the
case,
and
we
want
to
get
on
the
path
to
you
know
chipping
it
with
no
door,
you
know
and
Dorsey
it
whatever.
I
Then
we
can
decide
if
a
cat,
like
you,
you
know,
can
we
have
this
project
under
us
like
doing,
and
we
have
the
confidence
that
there
will
be
enough
people,
maintaining
it
I,
say
I.
Think
from
the
perspective
of
NPM,
that
note
foundation
is
great.
Like
you
know,
it
provides
infrastructure
for
you
know
and
to
build
on
a
project
in
open
collaborative
way
and
the
only
reason
we
would
not
want
to
have
support.
That
is,
if
we
think
it's
a
bad
idea.
J
H
E
A
The
ctc
repos
well
with
another
place,
I
I,
I,
think
yeah
idaman.
So,
okay,
the
whole
question
like
I,
don't
even
want
to
have
to
have
an
opinion
on
that,
because
instinctively
I
instinctively
I'm
like
no,
because
I
don't
use
version
meza,
don't
particularly
like
them,
but
I
understand
that
they
are
very
popular
out
there.
A
H
I
It's
but
it
looked
like
the
authors
of
N
and
no
discs
were
already
chipping
in
so
that's
pretty
much
the
you
know
the
top
three
of
the
version
manager
ecosystem
that
was
interested
in
this
thing,
so
I
mean
I.
Take
like
at
least
from
the
outside
looks
like
there
is
some
interest
now
and
I
mean
I,
don't
know
how
long
Jordan
of
them
stick
around
I,
just
something
we
would
all
mostly
asking.
But
if
you
want
to
stick
around
when
we
get
the
end
guy
and
like
yeah,
there's.
E
C
E
A
What
I've
been
asking
for
so
maybe
maybe
the
way
to
pay
for
what
he
is
to
say
Josh.
Do
you
want
to
take
that
as
a
to
do
try
and
pull
together
a
group?
Just
a
discussion
group
is
fine
and
to
see
to
feel
out
what
the
interest
is
to
feel
out
what
the
direction
is
and
if
that
turns
into
something
that
can
count
with
a
fully-formed
proposal
for
us.
So
we
can
say
great,
you
guys
care
and
have
an
opinion.
You
can
do
that.
E
E
H
C
H
F
C
A
H
I
J
A
F
F
A
And
you
know
what,
if
there's
a
group
of
people
that
want
to
do
a
working
group
around
version
management,
then
we
shouldn't
stand
in
the
way
of
that
and
if
they
want
to
come
like
we
should
be
facilitating
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
if
there's
a
group,
if
they
can
pull
together
a
interest
group
that
looks
at
this
whole
question,
then
that's
absolutely
our
role
to
facilitate
that
I
agree.
A
A
I
A
H
A
A
F
A
A
H
Yeah,
yes,
so
just
some
background
up
until
a
couple
months
ago
there
you
could
only
have
one
owner
ever
in
a
good
kick
in
a
google+
thing
in
a
google+
page.
I
guess
it's
called
so
I
had
to
add
everybody
manual
and
there
was
no
way
around
it.
Then
they
added
the
ability
to
add
other
owner,
so
I
promoted
a
bunch
of
people
to
that.
H
In
my
opinion,
the
way
that
this
should
work
is
that
anybody
who
is
a
team
maintainer
of
a
team
on
github
that
means
that
they're,
basically
bringing
on
enough
people
for
that
team
on
github
and
they're,
probably
running
meetings.
Those
people
should
all
have
a
at
least
access
to
the
google
plus
account
so
that
they
can,
you
know,
do
the
hangouts
and
record
everything
and
everybody
on
the
tsc
or
CT
see
if
they
want
to
should
be
an
owner
and
I'm
fine
with
promoting
anybody
who
wants
to
be
an
owner
over
there.
It.
A
B
A
B
A
A
D
I'm
guessing
our
proposed
live
meetings.
The
one
I
proposed
live
meetings
at
node.
Interactive,
probably
won't
happen.
It
hasn't
been
any
movement
on
that
it
was
a
little.
People
were
a
little
optimistic
at
first
about
maybe
doing
a
live
meeting
with
I'd
like
an
audience
and
everything,
but
haven't
heard
much
else
on
that.
D
H
Commented
on
it
and
I
said
that
we
can't
get
the
AV
to
work
for
that
many
people
during
the
conference
days.
But
we
could
do
one
at
the
collaboration
that
we
could
just
all
kind
of
huddle
around
the
table
and
then
get
everybody
around
us
to
do
a
live
one
during
the
collapse
and
that
if
we
wanted
to
I
am.
H
H
A
It's
the
logistics,
it
kind
of
got
it
look
so
William.
The
message
here
is,
if
you
want
to
take
it
on
the
challenge
of
trying
to
make
the
logistics
work
personally,
I
don't
have
any
problem,
I
suspect,
on,
as
he
won't
do
as
long
as
they
have
the
ability
to
interact.
If
they're
not
going
to
be
there
in
person.
Alright
I
will
see
what
I
can
do.
Wit.