►
Description
B
Welcome
to
the
node.js
community
TSC
meeting
September
13th
2017.
So
far
we
have
presents
le
chic
and
a
Henson
Brian
white
chalk
or
Colin
her
egg
and
Lukas
term
aya.
Some
people
James
Nell
miles
Boren
at
a
local
inna
myself,
Michael,
Dawson
Michaels,
so
rich
drop
rod,
bag
tree
sack
three
pre
yin-er
me
and
William
khaki.
B
B
At
this
point
we
have
only
a
single
nomination
for
the
TSE
chair
and
a
single
nomination
for
the
TSE
director
models.
Boren's
is
nominated
as
the
TSE
director
and
I'm
nominated
as
the
TSE
chair,
I
believe,
based
on
our
governance
that
you
know.
Unless
there's
any
objections,
then
you
know
that
seems
like
we're
at
a
consensus
in
terms
of
electing
those
two
people.
As
for
those
positions,
so
I'll
throw
it
to.
The
group
here
is
to
see
if
there's
any
concerns
or
discussion
on
that
front.
B
B
C
B
D
B
B
Right
so
with
the
the
merger
of
the
TSC
and
the
CTC,
we
have
a
larger
group
I.
Guess
it's
not
that
much
different
a
group
than
the
CTC
was
working.
I
know
rich.
We
looked
at
the
spreadsheet
we
had
in
two
different
times
and
there
was
a
proposal
to
shift
a
couple
of
the
meetings
to
kind
of
even
out
the
fairness,
I
think
rich.
Do
you
want
to
talk
to
this
one
a
bit
more.
C
Laughter
questions,
I
guess
looked
at
the
spreadsheet
on
the
times.
That
seemed
to
be
the
most
fair
and
were
the
three
listed
in
that
in
that
issue,
which
would
be
UTC
twelve
o'clock,
UTC
1700
and
UTC
2200
and
yeah
tried
really
hard
to
make
it
so
that
most
people
will
miss
regularly
missed
no
more
than
one
of
those
time
zones.
I
wanted
one
of
those
meetings
and
that's
what
we
came
up
with
and
I
see
that
no
looking
in
the
yeah,
no,
that's
all
I
got
to
say
for
now.
Unless
anybody
has
questions.
C
B
Yeah
I,
like
the
only
the
only
thing
I'd
add,
is
it's
probably
adjusted
based
on
some
people's
availability.
So
if
you
just
take
a
look
and-
and
you
know
if
it
looks
like
one
of
the
things
was
moved
to
better
fit
your
availability,
you
know
if
that
it
doesn't
actually
help
or
whatever.
That
might
be
something
to
comment
on,
but
otherwise
it
seems
like
you
know
the
way
to
go.
C
B
C
C
That's
come
up
before.
One
thing
to
bear
in
mind
is
that
daylight
saving
reverse
direction
or
people
in
the
opposite
hemisphere,
so,
like
rod,
will
shift
an
hour
ahead
when
mine
ships
now
are
back
and
that
results
in
a
in
a
in
a
two
hour
shift,
which
makes
makes
you
know,
means
that,
like
if
we
move
something
back
to
accommodate
me,
you
know
might
move
something
from
6
a.m.
to
4
a.m.
for
someone
like
God.
That
kind
of
thing
right.
F
C
B
C
C
B
B
H
B
If
we
can
I,
don't
know
if
you're
suggesting
that
we
have
like
one
person
factor
that
it
I
don't
know,
it
might
be
easier
to
just
have
everybody
adjust
it
if
you're,
if
you're
in
a
place
where
daylight
saving
time
it
doesn't
change,
you
got
no
work.
If
you
are,
then
it's
you
know
the
individual
can
can
basically
update
or
not
based
on
whether
it
affects
what
they've
got
there.
B
Otherwise,
we're
kind
of
like
putting
it
on
somebody
to
go
through
and
try
and
figure
it
out
and
get
it
right.
I
think
it's,
my
personal
feeling
is
it's
it's
probably
better.
As
a
distributed
update
gives
you.
It
also
gives
you
a
chance
to
reevaluate.
If
you
know
what
you've
put
in
there
still
makes
sense
for
you.
J
C
We
had
agreement
put
this
on
the
agenda
quite
a
while
ago,
yeah
and
then
a
bunch
of
comments
happen.
Yeah
I
think
I
think
we're
pretty
much
in
consensus
that
wanted
correct
segment
from
long.
But
what
we
want
to
do
you
know
they're
like
step
one,
which
is
every
time
a
new
member
is
added.
We
ask
them
to
enable
two
two-factor
authentication
we
that
we
want
to
do
that,
and
then
you
know
steps
two
and
three
don't
require
TSC
TSC
buy-in
and
after
we've
done
step
one
and
maybe
two
and
three
for
a
while.
C
D
Thing
that
we
could
do
that
might
be
worth
exploring.
Is
you
be
keys,
are
not
that
expensive
and
they
are
useful
as
two-factor
authentication
on
the
github
org,
we
could
ask
the
foundation,
if
maybe
they
would
be
willing
to
get
you
the
keys
for
all
the
members
which
could
be
provisioned
and
then
sent
out
or
big.
C
That's,
let's
even
see
if
people
have
a
problem
because
I
mean
I
mean
it
just
it
just
doesn't
seem
like
it's
been
I
mean
it
was
moat.
I
think
it
was
mostly
Nikita
and
I
who
like
tried
to
get
all
the
collaborators
to
you,
know
be
two
of
and
and
and
and
it
just
it
just
didn't
seem
like
like
like
that
was
the
problem.
Like
you
know,
I
mean
I.
Think
there
was
one
person
who
was
like:
oh
I,
don't
have
a
smartphone,
I'm
gonna
make
this
happen,
and
you
know
there's
you
know
they.
C
C
C
E
Definitely
we
should
if
we
enable
this,
we
should
have
a
policy
that
say
that
if
you
don't
have
the
financial
the
support,
if
you
need
financial
support
to
you
and
you
can't
have
you
don't
you
don't
have
a
smart
phone
and
you
want
Yubikey
or
something
like
that.
They
don't
cost
much.
So
you
can
ask
for
one
so
I,
don't
think.
That's
that's
a
big
deal.
B
B
Agreed
so
it
sounds
like
we
have
consensus
unless
there's
objection,
it
sounds
like
we're
all
agreed
to
move
to
step
one
it's
it
sounds
like
we
should
also
consider
looking
at
you
know,
can
we
do
something
for
people
who
have
a
problem,
I
think
there's
a
motivation
to
do
that.
It
also
sounds
like
rich.
You
know
you
think
we
could
defer
worrying
about
that
until
it
actually
happens.
K
B
B
And
definitely
you
know
rich.
If
we
do
have
people
who-
and
you
know
financially-
doesn't-
let's
bring
it
back
to
the
back
at
the
top
of
the
priority
to
to
figure
out
how
we
actually
fund
that
kind
of
stuff,
absolutely
okay,
okay,
so
number,
the
next
issue
is
number
278,
so
this
is
candidate
areas
for
the
TSC
and
community
committee.
I'll
I
opened
this
there's
nothing
urgent
on
this
front.
B
B
Some
of
them
I
think
we'd,
look
at
and
say
yeah
we're
completely
on
top
of
it.
There's
a
working
group,
that's
covering
that
other
ones.
We
may
find
that
you
know
we
have
individuals
who
are
doing
a
good
job,
but
that
you
know
we
could
use
a
little
bit
or
more
organization
to
make
things
happen
or
it'd
be
comfortable.
B
That,
like
you
know,
for
example,
do
we
update
our
dependencies
at
the
right
times
and
things
like
that,
so
really
all
I'm
gonna
say
further
on
this
is
it's
you
know
it's
a
call
to
look
at
those
areas,
comment
on
if
there's
bent
ones
that
are
missing
and
think
about.
You
know
how
we
might
work
on
that
going
forward.
F
B
E
Mesh
there
are
matrix
mentioned:
okay
and
I.
I
know
that
we
are
doing
that.
It
did
not
Foundation
does
here.
We
progress
on
the
nodejs
metric
itself,
but
I
didn't
know
what
is
the
right
venue
to
try
to
make
that
a
little
bit
less
a
bit
more
often,
okay,
I
have
the
matrix
about
node
right,
especially
because
a
lot
of
the
things
that
helps
driving
the
ecosystem
and
the
motor
Luthor's
is
the
penetration
of
older
versions
of
note
and.
B
B
K
B
B
But
have
any
strong
feeling
that
no,
this
is
something
we
really
thought
to
resolve
otherwise
like
for
me
I'm
yeah.
It
might
be
nice
to
figure
it
out,
but
if
it's,
if
it's
gonna
take
it
sounds
like
we've
been
trying
and
been
successful,
so
it's
going
to
take
some
sort
of
extra
nor
an
extraordinary
effort
to
make
it
happen.
So
I
kind
of
I'd
tend
to
agree
with
James
that
we
just
closed
it.
Unless
we
have
some
people
who
really
feel
strongly,
we
need
to
do
something
and
can
help
out
you.
I
B
A
regular
role
of
active
working
groups
so
I'm
just
opening
that
that's
number
109,
so
there's
a
proposal
to
try
and
get
regular
roll-ups
from
the
working
groups
in
terms
of
what's
going
on
and
I
think
that
it
kind
of
fits
in
a
little
bit
with
you
know
if
we're
looking
at
the
different
areas
and
tracking
and
trying
to
think
proactively
about
that,
then
having
you
know
insight
into
what's
going
on,
the
workgroups
makes
sense.
I.
B
Guess
at
this
point,
if
I
look
at
what's
there
other
than
having
been,
you
know,
the
the
activity
is
quite
a
long
time
ago,
so
we
actually
just
need
to
do
something
like
asking
you
know
we
could.
We
could
do
something
like
every
month
ask
a
different
working
group
to
come
and
talk
about
what's
been
going
on.
If
we're
interested
in
that.
I
B
And
I
think
it's,
it
would
be
a
matter
if
we
have
some
existing
work
groups.
We
have
the
release
work
group.
Once
we
renamed
LTS,
slash,
release,
work
group,
the
build
work
group,
the
benchmarking
work
group.
We
could
just
put
a
request
that
somebody
show
up-
and
you
know,
do
one
of
those
per
months
see.
M
B
M
I
I
B
B
D
D
Do
you
think
a
podcast
type
format
might
actually
be
easier?
Did
you're
saying
it's
really
easy
to
come
and
talk?
Maybe
this
is
the
kind
of
thing
that
could
be
a
rolling
podcast
from
the
foundation.
I
think
a
lot
of
people
would
be
interested
in
that
we
could
also
possibly
generate
some
notes
from
our
changelogs.
We
have
notable
sections
and
we
could
just
expand
on
the
notes
from
the
notable
sections
of
releases.
Those
are
the
two
different
ideas:
I'm
kind
of
spitballing
right
now.
B
The
podcast
is
interesting.
My
thought,
though,
with
the
discussion
is
like,
if
you
show
up-
and
you
say,
hey-
we've
kind
of
been
working
on
that
it
then
kind
of
naturally
leads
into
a
discussion
of
every
as
people
are
interested
in
and
and
where
to
go
into
more
detail
versus
having
to
think
about
that
and
sort
of
plan
it
in
beforehand.
I
find.
D
That
a
lot
of
podcasts
actually
follow
that
format.
At
least
that's
the
format
I
saw
when
I've
been
talking
on
them
like
I.
Don't
really
do
a
lot
of
planning
I
just
come
in
kind
of
talk
about.
What's
going
on
and
see
where
the
conversation
lies,
it
could
be
interesting
as
a
rolling
thing.
I'd
be
I'd,
be
willing
to
maybe
try
to
run
with
that
format
that
people
are
interested
in
it
and
I.
B
B
I
D
Yeah
James
and
I
have
talked
about
this.
I
came
to
started.
That
idea
and
open
the
PR,
Michael
and
I
have
had
conversations.
We
had
a
big
how
about
it.
We
had
a
big
conversation
about
it
at
the
collaborator
summit.
I
think
that
that's
still
an
idea,
that's
worth
exploring,
but
in
the
meantime,
I
think
like
something,
that's
really
low
friction.
It
creates
more
transparency.
B
D
I'll
make
a
Google,
Form
and
I'll,
send
it
to
the
CSD
and
the
working
groups,
and
then
people
can
just
fill
it
out
with
their
interest
in
subject
matter
area
and
then
I'll
just
start
making
a
schedule,
and
we
can
maybe
even
have
something.
That's
like
weekly
I'll
see
what
the
what
the
response
is
like,
and
you
know
how
much
time
it
takes
to
actually
do
this.
B
No,
okay,
so
I'm
gonna,
move
on
to
issue
under
this
is
not
under
now.
Moving
on
to
the
issues
under
no
GS
note,
so
the
first
one
is
twelve,
eight
five,
seven,
which
is
remove,
readable
and
writeable
state
dot
length.
It's
been
on
the
agenda.
I
know
a
number
of
times
before
I'm
just
going
to
pull
it
open.
E
E
Accessor
properties
into
readable
and
writeable,
so
we
can
export
some
parts
of
the
state
externally.
This
can
need
it
that's
needed.
So
we
don't
that.
So
if
there
is
a
need
to
access
any
part
of
the
state,
there
is
no
need
to
access
underscore
either
both
state
and
the
score
right.
It
will
stay
and
you
can
just
access
public
properties.
E
One
of
those
issues
is
related
to
length,
which
is
this:
the
amount
of
data
that
has
been
queued
in
the
internal
buffering
of
streams,
which
is
the
issue
that
the
first
one
of
the
issue-
and
there
is
a
fellow
member
of
authenticity
after
they
see
Brian.
That
said
that
this
project
wouldn't
want
to
follow
that
approach.
B
H
I
mean
really
the
only
the
main
thing
for
me
is
I.
Just
I
would
prefer
not
to
see
a
stack
on
a
whole
bunch
of
other
properties
to
people's
objects
more
than
we
already
have
I
think
having
them
corralled
into
separate
objects
like
we
have
now
is
a
better
solution
that
way
we're
not
having
a
potential
of
collisions
with
anybody
else's
properties
that
they're
already
using
that's
about
it.
For
me,.
H
E
Just
to
clarify
the
current
state
of
things,
okay,
so
some
of
those
properties
are
public
anyway,
in
some
form
or
another.
I
think
that
the
discussion
that
Brian
was
referring
to
was
to
have
a
separate
object,
which
is
not
what
we
have
right
now
prefixed,
but
it's
a
separate
object
that
access
the
one
that
we
have
prefix,
because
that
we
can
change,
because
people
are
using
that
at
least
not
for
a
while
and
have
it
that
these
objects
have
accessors
that
refers
to
the
other
one.
E
H
Then
you
know
I'm
happy
keeping
it
the
way
it
is
and
I
don't
know,
I
really
don't
care
I
mean,
like
I,
said
it's
already
kind
of
sort
of
documented
it
right
now
so
I,
don't
just
documenting
some
of
the
useful
properties.
Probably
won't
hurt
as
much
as
just
documenting
it
from
you
know
if
it
as
as
if
it
hadn't
been
documented
before
in
any
shape
or
form.
So
I
I
don't
really
care
at
that
point.
But
that's
only
if
none
of
the
other
solutions
performance,
wise
or
whatever
else
don't
work
for
anybody
else.
H
H
D
E
E
E
If
we
looked
at
it-
and
it
seems
that
was
our
preferred
approach,
so
I
am
fine
with
so
the
major
issue
option
is
at
this
point:
either
we
follow
that
approach
or
we
close
all
the
issues
or
somebody
else
start
working
on
proposal,
which
is
also
a
good
thing,
but
those
have
been
open
for
a
bit
and
maybe
blocking
other
stuff
as
well.
So
I
would
love.
E
A
C
I
E
E
N
B
D
I
can
bring
it
up
really
quickly
and
I.
Think
and
I
can
bring
up
a
little
more
if
I
miss
anything
that
the
short
of
it
is
that
we
have
a
cleric
west
in
tool
and
6.1
on
v8
before
it
goes
in
to
LTS
for
v8
6.1,
the
VA
team
has
worked
on
putting
together
a
patch
set
that
will
allow
it
to
be
a
VI
compatible.
Do
you
know
that
for
sure
I
believe?
So?
If
we
don't
have
that,
then
we
shouldn't.
N
D
D
It
will
make
long-term
maintenance
of
the
branch
much
easier,
although
I
would
simply
say
if
it's
not
a
bi
compatible,
it's
not
going
to
happen
that
it
seems
I
got
the
inversion
with
the
same
things
as
possible,
so
you
know
we're
about
a
month
to
and
a
month
and
a
half
away
from
LPS,
and
that
may
make
people
uncomfortable,
which
is
totally
reasonable.
So
I
just
wanted
to
see
if
it
was
a
non-starter
for
people
or
if
we
should
put
time
in
this
week
to
see
if
we
can
get
it
done.
B
I
D
D
B
D
And
it
seems
like
a
reason
to
push
it
to
the
end
of
October.
We
haven't
decided
a
date
yet
and
based
on
actually
based
on
the
LCS
Pro,
like
the
one
that
we
did
it
the
last
time
where
I
believe
we
added
a
thing
said
we
would
give
at
least
two
weeks
notice,
so
we're
within
the
window
of
doing
either.
We
can
set
the
date
anywhere
in
October
as
of
right
now.
So,
with
that
being
said,
I
think
like
we
have
the
flexibility
to
move
into
LTS
in
order
to
put
this
in.
I
D
B
I
think
we'd
want
like
I,
think
that's
a
good
idea.
We
need
to
do
that
quickly
because
I
think,
even
if
we
say
yes,
we
probably
like
you
know-
maybe
I
don't
know
I
mean
I
can
see
going
closer
than
two
months,
but
closer
than
one
month
seems
awfully
close
to
me.
But
certainly
if
you
said
the
week
before,
I'd
be
like
well,
that
seems
way
too
close.
I,
don't
know
what
other
people's
feelings
are.
K
The
primary
reason
for
objecting
in
the
past
that's
been
simply
that
if
we
don't
have
a
lot,
a
long
enough
to
have
experience
with
the
performance
profile
and
what
we're
locking
ourselves
into
and
there's
a
higher
risk
of
of
going
into
an
LTS
with
something
that
we
regret.
So
that's
that's
been
the
case,
but
maybe
we
view
this
as
a
special
case
because
of
turbofan.
That's
really
I
think
that
complicates
the
decision
on.
D
I'm
I'm
willing
to
say
that
we
are,
we
have
two
days:
I'm
Anna
Munich
office
with
the
v18
I
can
figure
out
what
the
risk
profile
is
by
talking
to
them,
and
we
can
have
something
to
present
to
LCS
on
Monday
to
make
an
informed
decision.
If
we'll
even
test
it,
and
we
could
do
it,
we
can
do
it,
release
candidate
also
pretty
easily
and
just
see
if
that
brings
up
anything
weird.
D
B
K
D
D
Could
also
change
the
time
on
Monday
so
for
what
it's
worth
I'm
looking
at
my
calendar
and
noticing
that
I'm
on
a
flight
that
overlaps
with
the
meeting.
So
if
it
helps,
maybe
we
can
push
the
meeting
forward
a
couple
hours
so
that
more
people
can
assess
attend.
But
maybe
you
can
move
that
to
the
LTS
tracker
and
come
up
with
the
time
for
Monday
that
more
people
can
attend.
B
Let's
do
that
tonight
because
I
think
just
that
general
comment,
we
should
look
for
a
different
time
where
we
can,
you
know,
allow
you
to
to
make
it
okay.
So
unless
there's
our
there's
objections
to
research
will
be
done
this
week
and
they'll
be
presented
at
the
LTS
working
group
anybody's
interested
to
attend
that
and
the
decision
will
be
made
there.
B
Okay,
so
I
think
that's
the
the
last
one
is
issue
165
and
there's
been
some
discussion
on
that,
but
I
think
we'll
leave
that
think.
I
think
the
where
it's
at
now
is
that
any
further
discussion
should
be
at
least
in
the
private
section
for
today.
So
we'll
move
on
to
the
Q&A.
Do
we
have
any
questions
Jeremiah
in
terms
of
questions
in
IRC
or
the
issue.
A
A
B
The
one
I
added
yeah,
okay,
I,
should
remember
that.
Why
didn't
I
guess
I
didn't
add
it
to
the
minute.
Sorry
right
that
one
is
around
and
also
out
reduce
that
one
that
one's
around
how
we
handle
our
CBE
pro
our
CBE
issuance.
You
know
today
we
basically
have
to
submit
a
request
to
mitre.
We
haven't
had
good
luck
in
debt,
turning
that
around
quickly
in
our
discussion,
I.
Actually
at
a
meeting
with
a
representative
from
the
The
MITRE
team,
his
suggestion
was
that
we
actually
become
a
CNA
and
that's
basic.
B
You
know
what
that
basically
means
is
that
we're
in
charge
of
the
CVS
that
get
is
cheap
4-node.
You
know
the
way
it
would
work
practically
day-to-day.
Is
that
they'll
give
us
a
block
at
the
beginning
of
the
year,
based
on
how
many
we
think
we'll
need
for
the
year,
and
then
we
can
basically
assign
those
ourselves.
We
still
do
need
to.
You
know,
use
the
tool
to
post
the
information
back
to
them,
but
in
terms
of
getting
a
CB
number
and
using
it,
we
just
pull
them
from
the
pool
we
have.
B
B
You
know
from
my
discussion.
It
doesn't
sound
like
that's
going
to
be
a
significant
amount
of
work.
The
other
advantage
to
being
a
CNA
is
that
you
we
control.
We
get
the
first
right
of
refusal
effectively.
So
if
somebody
outside
of
our
organization
tries
to
go
to
mitre
to
raise
a
CBE,
so
you
know
and
they'll
defer
to
us
to
decide
whether
it
is
a
vulnerability
or
not
an
issue
that
CBE
there
is
a
dispute
process.
So
if
you
know
the
person
reporting
of
vulnerability
disagrees
with
us,
they
can
still.
B
You
know,
challenge
that
and
bring
it
up
to
mitre,
but
it
doesn't.
It
does
in
Sirte
sin
to
the
loop
of
deciding
whether
things
or
vulnerabilities
or
not.
So
you
know
my
proposal.
Having
discussed
it
with
them-
and
you
know
Sam-
is
that
we
just
go
ahead
and
do
that
it
would,
it
would
mean
we
would
be
able
to
issue
our
CDs
more
more
easily.
We
get
a
bit
of
control
over,
you
know
who
decide
we
get
to
be
in
the
decision-making
process
of
what's
a
CBE
or
not,
and
you
know
I'm.
B
So
the
reason
I
added
it
on
to
the
agenda
is
that
you
know
we're
thinking
we've.
You
know,
we've
discussed
that
Sam
and
I
in
terms
of
the
scope
of
the
security
working
group
there's
an
issue
where
it's
been
discussed,
but
this
is
something
that
you
know
the
overall
organization
is
taking
on.
So
I
wanted
to
make
sure
that
nobody
in
the
in
the
TSC
group
had
any
objections
or
concerns
about.
You
know
just
doing
that.
B
G
K
There's
no
non-trivial
people
overhead
they're,
just
from
experiencing
my
experience
managing
security
stuff
unless
someone's
gonna
be
dedicated
to
doing
this
and
actually
has
the
time
for
it.
Then
we
shouldn't
dismiss
that
as
a
real
cost
on
the
org
I'm,
not
saying
it's
an
that's
a
nickname,
I'm
saying
what
it's
a
minus
one
for
me,
I'm,
just
saying
this
is
a
you
know,
taking
on
additional
administrative
burden
for
an
awkward
had
trouble
managing
administrative
burden,
yeah.
B
D
Also
something
to
be
said
about
responsibility
on
it
like
having
another
org.
That's
responsible
for
this
does
offload
a
lot
of
pressure
completely
aside
from
the
amount
of
work
and
having
an
ongoing
thing
that
we
have
the
expertise
to
potentially
do
this
today,
but
like
if
that
expertise
is
not
interested
in
doing
that
work
or
doesn't
have
the
time
we
could
find
yourself
in
a
position
where
we
don't
have
people
who
can
manage
this,
which
could
be
problematic.
I
I
B
D
I
K
B
Yeah
on
the
assumption
that
it's
not
particularly
there
isn't
a
particularly
large
load,
if
we
discover
that's
completely
wrong,
you
know
I
think
we'd
go
back
to
the
lighter
and
say
sorry,
you
know
we're
handing
it
back
to
you
did
the
other
thing
that
was
discussed
as
hacker.
One
is
a
tool
which
will
help
you
manage
security
reports.
B
B
K
B
C
B
So
I'm
gonna
leave
it
on
the
agenda
and
basically
you
know
ask
people
who
do
have
concerns
to
jump
in
the
discussion
there
and
we'll
bring
it
back
again
in
terms
of
the
next
connects
one
side:
okay
with
everybody,
okay
and
I.
Guess
Jeremiah.
Since
you'd
asked
for
questions,
we
have
any
questions
Nikki
way.