►
From YouTube: Node.js Tooling Group Meeting
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
B
B
I
thought
to
start
with.
We
could
just
basically
the
two
things
that
we've
done
already
on
this
front
is
make
derp
and
rimraf,
so
I
thought
might
be
good
to
just
start
with
those
and
kind
of
like
you
know
summarize
how
that
went
any
any
lessons
that
we
learned
along
the
way.
I
there
definitely
were
some
so
yeah.
Does
anyone
have
anything
they
want
to?
C
With
ribbon,
ref
was
interesting
for
me
because
it
it
definitely
felt
like
it
taught
me
that,
like
we,
we
shouldn't
have
just
done
experimental
in
docs.
We
probably
should
have
had
a
loud
warning
in
in
our
command
line,
and
I
know
we
did
do
that
for
fs.promises
and
I
think,
probably
without
having
that
warning,
we
probably
have
more
adoption
than
we
would
like,
given
we're
changing
some
of
the
functionality.
So
I
think
we
really
need
to
be
diligent
to
to
call
out
that
things
are
experimental.
B
Yeah
agreed,
and
that
was
just
kind
of
an
oversight.
It
sounds
like
with
brimroth,
but
definitely
a
good
thing
to
do
going
forward.
C
B
Which
I
think
we
kind
of
ended
up
with,
in
my
opinion,
a
not
great
compromise.
B
That's
something
that
I
have
on
the
list
here
that
to
talk
about
maybe
later
too
is
like
going
forward.
We
want
to
be
using
the
recursive
flag,
or
is
there
some
other
pattern?
We
should
be
following.
C
B
C
C
C
B
But
maybe
that
one
didn't
need
to
be
like,
I
think,
going
forward
too
we're
gonna
have
like
similar
situations
where
you
know,
some
of
these
features
are
maybe
more
contentious,
or
it's
not
immediately
clear
like
how
they
work
or
the
functionality
should.
C
E
Okay,
what
is
the
what's
the
reason
to
throw
things
into
experimental
or
or
is
it
just
the
tendency
to
throw
things
there?
Just
for
safety-ish
reasons
is
that
it.
A
I
feel,
like
things,
get
put
there
because
we're
not
really
confident
and
essentially
we're
not
confident
that
it's
going
to
work
for
people
and
I
think
that's
what
happened
with
render
where
it
you
know
it.
It
had
this,
it
had
the
behavior
it
had,
and
then
you
know
sometime
much
later,
people
started,
you
know
picking
it
up
and
saying
well,
this
doesn't
really
work
like
I
expect
it
to,
and
I
think
it
was
the
right
call
to
put
that
in
experimental.
A
A
B
Yeah
that
that
was
an
interesting
decision.
We
definitely
like
I'm.
I
made
like
the
same
pr
three
times
before
that
got
merged,
where
initially
I
inlined
it
kind
of
like
like
we
did
end
up
doing
and
then
someone
was
like.
Oh,
you
should
vendor
that.
B
So
then
I
did
that
and
then
someone
else
made
a
pr
that
was
like
no,
I
just
imported
the
whole
thing,
and
then
everyone
approved
that
so
that
was
definitely
a
bit
of
a
frustrating
experience,
but
I
do
kind
of
wish
that
we
we
had
just
gone
with
the
maybe
like
the
properly
vendored
approach.
B
C
C
I
think
that
it's
good
that
we've
entered
that
we
well.
I
think
it's
good
that
we,
even
if
it
was
just
a
copy
paste
into
the
fs
folder.
I
think
it's
good
that
we
did
use
an
existing
library,
because
I
think
we
would
have
spent
five
years
debugging
things
that
have
been
debugged
and
rimrap
already
for
the
last
five
years.
B
D
B
But
because
it
I
mean
yeah
from
working
on
it,
a
few
times
like
that
code
is
super
confusing
the
way
that
it
works.
Like
I
don't
know,
I
mean
it
would
be
great
to
maybe
rewrite
it
in
a
more
straightforward
way,
because
it
was
written
a
long
time
ago
uses
like
tons
of
callbacks
and
stuff
like
that,
but
yeah,
it's
so
they're,
like
you
said
there
are
so
many
little
things
in
there
from
like.
You
know.
How
does
this
work
on
like
solaris
or
whatever
that
I
I
really.
A
That,
okay,
so
not
everything
is
like
that,
though
you
know,
it's
like
we
make.
Derp
is
not
gonna,
be
that
bad
and
but
I
think
it's
fair
to
say,
then
you
know
we
it's
not
something
we
want
to
like
explicitly
avoid
or,
and
it's
not
something
we
always
want
to
do
it's
it's
just.
It
should
be
an
option
if
we,
if
we
need
to
reach
for
it
right.
B
Yeah,
I
agree,
I
guess
actually,
why
don't?
Why
don't?
Maybe
we
like
segue
into
that
now
so
the
next
on
the
agenda
was,
you
know,
maybe
just
let's
spend
some
put
some
thought
into
what
what
are
some
other
fs
apis
that
we
could
make
recursive
or
entirely
new
things
like
like
copy
dir
which
doesn't
exist
at
all?
B
Actually,
maybe
we
could
start
to.
I
know
darcy,
you
worked,
you
tried
was
it?
Was
it
ch
own
or
ch
mod
that
you
were
trying
to.
D
Do
yeah
that
was
primarily
the
only
session
that
I
got
any
time
to
even
look
at
that
was
with
when
I
paired
with
ben
and
ben
was
essentially
the
one
to
kick
that
off,
and
I
think
it
still
has
a
branch
open
for
that
which
function
was
that
though
it
was
for.
I
think
it
was
tremendous
what
we
were
looking
at.
D
Okay,
even
though
I
think
the
original
issue
that's
open
is
for
chandler,
but
I've
been
following
along
and
being
like,
I
think,
just
doing
a
whole
pass
at
these
recursive
functions
like
it
just
needs.
Somebody
needs
to
take
time
and
just
be
like.
I
think
this
could
easily
be
like
one
in
one
foul
swoop.
Do
a
bunch
of
these
recursively.
B
D
I
think
it's
time
to
isaac
was
the
one
that
brought
up
like
a
concern
about
what
was
it
time
to.
I
forget
the
the
issue.
Exactly
you
can
go
find
the
actual
comment.
B
I
think
I
mean
that's
definitely
something
to
be
aware
of
going
forward
with
these
things.
There's
definitely
like.
I
think
security
is
a
concern
making
things
recursive
in
a
way.
That's
like
doesn't
have
any
like
timing,
issues
is
potentially
tricky
and
then
some
of
them.
I
think
the
work
has
to
happen
in
like
libya
v,
which
further
complicates
things
okay,
so
we
had.
We
had
chmod
and
ch
own
are
some
that
we've
kind
of
already
identified.
E
So
one
that
comes
to
mind
is
watch,
and
it
does
watch
already
has
the
recursive
option.
However,
it's
not
supported
on
linux,
so
I
mean
there
are.
There
are
some
technical
reasons
for
that.
It's
my
understanding
that
it
would
be
quite
the
hassle
to
make
that
work
with
the
implementation.
That's
used
for
linux,
which
is
I
notify,
but
if
something
could
be
manually
done
to
work
around
that
and
make
the
api
more
consistent,
even
if
it's
not
the
most
efficient,
then
that
might
be
an
appropriate
course
of
action
there.
E
B
Yeah,
but
I
think
that
has
come
up
in
meetings
in
the
past,
where,
like
that's
one
of
the
things,
I
think
that
we've
identified
as
like
a
not
great
experience
for
developers
to
not
have
like
that.
There
is
that
functionality
built
into
the
platform,
but
it's
kind
of
buggy
and
sketchy,
and
so
people
use
you
know,
like
watchmen
or
other
tools
like.
B
A
C
I
would
love
to
kind
of
a
meta
thing:
I'd
love
for
us
to
think
about
customer
use
cases
for
or
like
user
stories.
For
some
of
these
things,
like,
I
think
part
of
why
chmod
and
cho
maybe
lost
some
momentum
was
that
it
wasn't
as
immediately
obvious
that
a
million
people
would
use
it,
but
maybe
there's
some
major
stakeholders
who
would
like,
I
think,
npm,
maybe
uses
some
of
these.
This
functionality,
I
would
should
be.
I
would
assume,
when
it's
dumping
stuff
to
disk,
so.
B
They
were
one
of
the
people
that
was
interested
in
whether
it
was
cho
or
chmod
right.
C
D
Yeah,
so
I
was
trying
to
find,
I
had
started
a
list
like
a
huge
list.
After
our
call
been,
and
then
I've
just,
I
can't
seem
to
find
it
yeah.
D
I
started
to
go
through
all
these
and
then
look
at.
I
think
it
was
like
I
forget
who
mentioned
it
but,
like
might
have
been
chris.
That
was
like
there's
a
whole
bunch
of
prior
art
with
like
posix
and
like
what
we
would
wanna.
D
However,
you
like
pronounce
it
post,
postx,
unlike
how
which
apis
we
would
want
to
mimic
versus
what
do
we
already
have,
that
we
could
essentially
add
recursive
to.
C
We
could
explicitly
like
it
just
to
be
a
play.
Devil's
advocate
like
we
could
have
an
anti-goal
and
say
we're
not
going
to
move
all
the
fs
operations
over
we're
fine
with
targeting
these
ones.
That
we
know
are
super
impactful
for
users
like
rimraff
mcderp
copy
recursive,
maybe
like
it
sounds
like
ryan,
has
a
really
really
use
case
for
watch,
but,
like
maybe
we
don't
need
to
for
file
system
operation
x
that
people
use
rarely
right.
B
E
E
E
Not
necessarily
the
contents,
but
if,
if
if
one
of
the
entries
is
a
directory
that
could
open
up
to
an
array
that
has
those
entries
in
it,
that
sort
of
thing
some
kind
of
data
structure
where
that
makes
sense
right.
B
Yeah,
so
let's
maybe
talk
about
that,
I
have
that
under,
like
you
know,
entirely
new
things.
Let
me
like
copy
der
or
copy.
C
B
I
do
agree
this
would
be,
I
think
it
seems
like
a
pretty
obvious
one
and
it
does
seem
like
it
would
be
pretty
impactful.
I
think
there
are
some
complications
with
it
like
I'm,
not
sure
if
you
could
implement
that
entirely
in
the
javascript
layer
or
if
it
would
need
some
underlying
support.
B
A
A
Yeah
move,
which
I
mean
that's
what
it
will
do
right.
A
B
E
I
think
that
one
of
the
biggest
concerns
I
would
have
with
that
is
what
happens
in
the
case
of
various
forms
of
links
that
could
be
handled
with
with
options
as
the
cpu
command
on
ux's
is.
E
But
it
would
be
something
that
would
be
needed
that
we
need
to
take
into
account,
but
I
believe
that
our
existing
apis
for
copy
file
and
such
we'll
do
we'll
we'll
also
take
such
options
anyway.
So
it
seems
like
that
may
be
a
solid
problem.
C
This
kind
of
gets
back
to
the
at
that
point.
Brian
gets
back
to
isaac's
concern
with
chmod
and
I
think
probably
shown
two,
which
is
it's
the
problems
around
links,
sim
links,
if
you,
because
you
have
to
do
two
system
operations
to
check
to
see
if
it
is
a
sim
link
or
folder
or
file
and
then
perform
an
operation
to
change
its
settings
an
attacker
because
those
are
two
atomic
operations,
an
attacker
could
actually
get
an
operation
in
between
that
switches.
C
E
I
guess
sort
of
a
question
there
is:
how
is
it
dealt
with
in
existing
commands
like
in
bash
and
whatnot,
or
is
it
just
simply
not
dealt
with
or
is
it
not
a
concern?
There.
C
E
B
B
Yeah,
I
definitely
think
security
is
a
big
concern
for
some
of
these,
which
may
be
maybe
part
of
the
planning
of
this,
too,
is
to
have
someone
that
we
can.
You
know,
run
these
things
by
for
those
kinds
of
concerns.
I
don't
know
if
I'm
sure
there
is
like
a
node
security
team,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
that's
the
kind
of
thing
they
do.
D
A
G
Has
been
doing
some
like
kind
of
security
proposals
at
the
openjs
level
and
was
working
on
the
new
security
alliance
foundation
thing
and
we've
talked
about
having
like
a
security
kind
of
working
group
at
the
foundation
level.
I
wonder
if
you
know
we
could,
if
there
are
people
there
as
well,
that
might
be
able
to
run
stuff
by
be
a
good
resource.
E
So
there
are
also
some
external
folks
in
academia
who
are
doing
security
research
with
respect
to
node.
One
name
that
comes
to
mind
is
my
former
colleague
dan
stefan
at
uc
san
diego.
C
I
think
a
lot
of
these
things
I'm
going
to
derail.
I
think
a
lot
of
these
things
for
me
speak
to
like
having
a
bit
of
an
rfc
or
a
design
document
that
says
here's
our
plan
for
where
we
want
to
get
file
system
two
in
the
next
year
or
something
because
then
we
could
vet
the
plan
to
a
certain
degree
before
we
start
really
diving
in
on
each.
B
Yeah,
I
think
that's
a
good
idea,
especially
when
I
mean
you
mentioned
a
few
things
here
like
identifying
use
cases
for
the
feature.
You
know
we
just
talked
about
security
kind
of
reviews
so
yeah.
Maybe
that
is
good.
Maybe
we
could
sort
of
you
know,
rather
than
putting
up
a
pr
and
then
getting
feedback
about
the
api.
Maybe
we
could
get
some
of
that
accomplished
up
front
before
anyone
starts
writing
code.
B
C
B
Yeah
they
have
it's
a
copy
tree
or
something
I
think
right.
Yeah
yeah,
I'm
definitely
in
favor
of
that
being
a
separate
method
as
well
does.
B
Yeah,
I
guess
I'm
not
really
sure
like
how
is
recursive
copying
implemented
like
at
the
system
level.
Is
it?
Is
it
literally
just
a
bunch
of
calls
to
copy,
or
is
there
some
other
magic
that
happens
there.
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
C
I
think
it's
user
hostile
to
expect
a
user
to
once
if
you're
coming
from
windows
as
an
example-
and
you
have
a
completely
different
mental
model
of
the
system,
you
still
have
a
mental
model
of
the
file
system
and
operations
on
the
file
system.
Copying
a
file
deleting
a
file.
What
have
you,
but
you
don't
necessarily
have
a
mental
model
of
how
unix
approaches
that
so
so
it
feels
a
little
user
hostile
to
move
anything.
That's
not
posix
into
a
different
place
that
the
user
now
needs
to
find.
A
For
for,
in
terms
of
like
comparison,
I
think
the
way
rust
handles
stuff
like
this
is
like
there's
a
high
level
api
which
may
or
may
not
work,
and
then
there
are
low
level
apis
like
that
are
platform
specific,
so
like
you
will
have
like
one
thing
to
just
like
do
some
file
system
operation
and
then,
if
you
know
you're
running
on
unix
or
whatever
you
can
use
the
you
can
use
that
low
level
implementation
and
then
there's
you
know
if
you
know
you're
on
windows,
you
can
use
the
the
windows
implementation,
which
probably
doesn't
exist,
but
that's
kind
of
like
a
way
in
which
rust
handles
this
problem,
whether
that's
suitable
for
node
or
not,
is
I
don't
know?
B
There,
but
that
was,
I
think,
with
the
initial
rim
raf
attempt,
I
think
that
was
like.
I
was
resistant
to
putting
it
in
fs
because
it
does
kind
of
break
with
that
posix
compatibility,
and
so
we
initially
wanted
to
put
it
in
a
different
module,
but
that
was
met
with
a
lot
of
resistance,
but
I
agree
we,
I,
I
do
still
kind
of
favor
that
approach.
I
just
don't
know
if
it's
gonna
happen.
C
C
That
was
obviously,
and
they
have
some
methods
like
fs.read
text
file,
which
is
like
without
telling
me
that
it's
utf-8
encoding
or
doing
any
of
the
shenanigans
you
have
to
do
to
get
a
text
file
in
node,
it's
literally
just
a
slightly
higher
level
abstraction
that
gives
you
a
text
file
instead
of
a
file
handle
or
whatever,
which
I
thought
was
kind
of
cool
and
that's
in
the
same
name.
Space
as
like
read
file,
it's
just
a
slightly
higher
level
abstraction
than
read
file.
C
I
I
think
for
rimraf
I
came
around.
I
really
will
see
how
this
all
lands,
but
I
kind
of
did
come
along
around
to
that
argument
that
it
was
doing
too
much
so
so,
like
you
like,
I
don't
really
like.
I
don't
frankly,
I
don't
know
all
the
posix
commands
or
or
do
I
know
when
we're
compliant
and
not
compliant,
but
the
argument
that
I
should
be
able
to
capture
errors.
C
C
Like
it
shouldn't
be
on
one
of
the
lower
level
file
system
operations
and
you
should
opt
into
it
with
a
function
that
sounds
like
it's
going
to
do
more
like
calling
copy
directory.
It
just
sounds
like
it's.
You
know.
The
method
name
sounds
like
it's
going
to
be
doing
a
little
more
work
for
me.
Basically,
what
you
do,
jay.
B
Yeah,
which
is,
I
mean,
part
of
the
reason
yeah,
I
favor
that
being
a
new
method,
even
rimrap
like
if
we
had
implemented
rimraf
as
like
fs.rimrap
or
something,
then
I
think
we
wouldn't
be
considering
changing
some
of
its
behavior
around
being
able
to
like
delete
a
file,
for
example,.
A
So
joe,
who
I
work
with,
is
in
this
meeting
and
he
wanted
to
join
and
get
involved.
So
let's
give
him
something
to
do.
G
Okay,
yeah,
I
was
gonna,
ask
I
wasn't
sure
if
we
were
at
that
point
yet,
but
if
unfortunately,
I've
been
kind
of
doing
stuff,
so
I
haven't
been
able
to
take
my
own
notes,
but
I'm
gonna
look
back
at
the
notes
there
and
if
there's
something
that
you
think
would
make
sense
to
start
focusing
on
I'd,
be
happy
to
take
a
look
sure.
Yeah.
B
B
B
B
That
was
one
too
like
I've
definitely
been
interested
in
in
the
whole
copy
door
thing
and
possibly
implementing
that
so
yeah.
Let
me
know
if
you
start
working
on
that.
I'd
really
like
to
as
well.
G
Okay,
yeah,
I
mean
you're
happy
to
to
you,
know
partner
on
that,
in
whatever
way
make
sense,
rfc
and
implementation
and
everything
yeah
sure
that
sounds
great
cool.
A
C
Yeah
well
yeah,
like
I,
I
think
ian's
ian's
been
contributing
to
this
working
group
since
pretty
much
day
one.
So
I
would
make
a
case
free
in
without
this
pr
landing,
but
I
think
it
just
makes
the
case
a
little
easier
where
we
can
say
like
you
can
help
see
this
feature
over
the
finish
line
by
the
way
he's
been
involved
with
this
working
group
from
days
of
day,
one.
B
Started
yeah,
I
mean
I'm
definitely
in
favor
of
that.
C
Actually,
let's
write
down
some
action
items,
I
we
were
doing
a
good
job
before
society
collapsed,
of,
like
occasionally
having
meetings
where
we
had
where
we
set
out
a
road
map
for
ourselves,
and
I
really
liked
how
that
did
bubble
into
like
a
few
working
sessions
on
the
command
line,
parsing
stuff
that
chris
just
delivered
a
pr
on.
C
I
think
just
formalizing
this
process
of
having
a
little
bit
of
a
road
map
for
the
group
and
then
emitting
some
rfcs
out
of
that,
I
think
would
be
great,
and
I
think
that
that
kind
of
it
seems
like
a
good
starting
point
to
really
kick
the
file
system
work.
We're
doing
in
the
motion
again
like
we
were
talking
about
on
this
call.
C
So
I
said
action
item
having
in
other
meetings
at
some
point,
not
in
the
not
too
distant
future
to
re-evaluate
road
map,
but
also
like
we
were
saying
with
joe,
maybe
starting
with
an
rfc
process
for
some
of
this
other.
This
other
stuff.
B
Yeah,
so
are
you?
Are
you
meaning
like
do
that
during
this
time
slot
or
or
like
with
the
I
know,
with
the
our
parser,
you
guys
had
like
a
few
sort
of
out
of
band.
C
So
I'm
of
the
I'm
just
one
opinion
I
kind
of
like
the
out-of-band
meetings,
because
you
get
like
a
slightly
smaller
subgroup,
where
I'm
really
interested
in
that
one
specific
thing,
but
and
it's
hard
to
have
it's
hard
to
build
things
with
a
giant
group
of
people
but
for
the
roadmap.
I
actually
like
the
large
groups
of
people.
So
I
don't
know
I'm
open.
B
G
I
think
meeting
every
other
week
to
if
we
had
some
out-of-band
meetings.
You
know
there's
more
progress
to
be
had
for
sure,
and
it
would
be
good
for
me
to
kind
of
ramp
up
on
some
of
the
work
that
y'all
are
looking
at.
A
C
C
Any
official
standing
on
the
node
project
like
and
chris
and
I
were
discussing
whether
that's
something
we
should
be
trying
to
achieve
like
if
we,
if
we
do
get
to
the
if
we
do
start
delivering
these
rfcs
and
we
do
have
a
bit
of
a
road
map
like,
is
there
a
little
bit
more
of
a
charter
we
would
have
around?
That?
Is
that
something
we
should
be
considering.
B
There
were,
I
mean
I
think,
I'm
in
favor
of
it.
I
know
there's
some
like
additional
stuff.
That
goes
with
being
like
a
chartered
working
group,
and
I
think
one
of
the
things
we
mentioned
at
the
time
was
we
actually
like,
even
though
we're
not
officially
a
group
like
people
will
like
ping
no
tooling
on
pr's
and
things
like
that
that
are
contentious.
So
I
think
at
the
time
we
we
were
like.
Oh,
I
think
we're
getting.
Maybe
enough
value
not
being
a
charter
working
group
but
yeah.
Maybe
it's
time
to.
B
C
Think,
on
my
mind,
is
is,
is
in
with
chris's
pull
request
to
argument
parsing.
I
kind
of
wish
that
we
would
have
been
in
a
position
to
reach
consensus
inside
of
our
working
group
without
having
to
go
to
the
tsc,
and
I
don't
know.
If
that's
I
don't
even
know.
If
that's
something
that
can
happen
in
a
chartered
group,
I
don't
understand
how
the
process
works.
It
is
yeah.
A
You
know
the
tsc
like,
essentially
it
either
will
or
can
empower
working
groups
to
have
the
final
say
on
their
little
area.
So,
but
I
don't,
I
don't
really
know
how
that
would
look
for
us
since,
since
it's
kind
of
it's
not
like,
we
have
a
there's
just
a
lot
of
things
that
tooling
touches.
You
know
what
I
mean
so.
A
B
H
H
Ours
was
because
of
the
work
we
were
doing
in
the
pkgs
org
and
we
needed
in
order
to
have
that
under
the
the
node
you
know
umbrella.
We
needed
some,
you
know
official
ownership
of
it,
so
we
just
had
to
like
lay
out
that
dock
and
then
add
you
know,
add
the
proposal
for
the
tsc
to
discuss.
It's
really
that
that
simple-
and
I
think
you
know-
but
I
think
tooling
is
probably
too
broad
like
tooling,
as
just
a
general
concept
is
too
broad
would
be
my
guess
right
so
like
when
we
did.
H
The
packaging
surgery
was
specifically
for
the
goals
of
these.
You
know
that
org
we're
talking
about
maybe
doing
it
for
the
web
server
frameworks,
which
is
morphing
a
little
bit
into
taking
ownership
of
all
of
http,
and
if
we
were
to
go
that
route,
which
it
sounds
like
we
will
at
some
point
we
would
probably
seek
charter
there
as
well.
H
But
again,
those
are
like.
There
were
very
two
clear
reasons
why
you,
you
know,
choose
that
and
so
putting
together
the
document
I
mean,
I
think,
michael
just
copied
and
pasted
another
one
and
changed
some
of
the
terms
or
whatever.
So
it's
not
like
it's
like
time
consuming
or
anything,
but
but
we
definitely
had
a
ton
of
discussions
around.
What
is
the?
G
C
B
Yeah,
maybe
illustrating
that
more
with,
like
specific
examples
versus
just
describing
it
would
help
with
that
process.
I
was
also
going
to
suggest
wes.
I
think
you
mentioned
like
michael
dawson-
maybe
he
maybe
it
might
be
good
to
he'd,
be
a
good
person
to
talk
to
about
this
idea.
First.
B
Yeah,
okay:
does
anyone
want
to
to
take
that
on
as
an
action
item,
just
even
just
to
get
things
started.
A
I
I
mean
I
can
do
that.
I
do
want
to
say
that
we
should
temper
our
expectations,
but
I
will
definitely
reach
out
about
it,
and
you
know
I
I
think
wes
is
right,
that
it's
going
to
be
very
difficult
to
to
find
that
scope,
and
I
I
think
further,
it's
just.
A
For
the
tsc
to
essentially
delegate
decisions
to
a
group,
it
needs
to
be
able
to
trust
that
group
right
and
I'm
not
sure,
like
what
is
what
what
needs
to
happen
for
the
tsc
to
to
trust
that
you
know
we're
not
going
to
do
things
that
are
going
to
be
horrible,
and
I
don't
know
like
what
that
looks
like
or
or
how
the
tsc
feels
about
it.
Right
now,.
H
H
G
And
is
it
correct
that
chartered
groups
have
like
a
tsc
champion
or
liaison
or
some
you
know,
person
who
is
a
part
of
that
group
as
well?
I'm
not
sure.
H
B
Yeah,
I
think
I
mean
I
think
it's
worth
at
least
maybe
having
a
conversation
with
him
as
a
starting
point
to
see
if
this
is
worth
pursuing.
I
think
one
good
thing
I
mean
we
did
kind
of
say
that
up
until
now,
we've
been
pretty
happy
with
not
being
a
chartered
group,
so
I
mean
I
think,
if,
if
it
turns
out
that
wasn't
possible
or
whatever
I
don't
think
that
would
be,
you
know
a
big
hit
to
to
the
group
like
I
would
be.
B
C
B
A
Leave
it
at
that
yeah
oh
y'all,
go
into
my
pr
and
approve
it
or
something
or
give
it
thumbs
up,
and
because
it
really
helps
to
have
right.
Sorry,
it
didn't
happen
more
thumbs.
Ups.
D
No,
I
just
said
links
or
it
didn't
happen.
Oh,
but
yes,
great
work
both
of
you
guys.