►
From YouTube: Open RFC Meeting - Wednesday, Oct 16th
Description
In our ongoing efforts to better listen to and collaborate with the community, we're piloting an Open RFC call that helps to move conversations and initiatives forward. The focus should be on existing issues/PRs in this repository but can also touch on community/ecosystem-wide subjects.
Meeting Notes:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1i9gTrFw5mthiXEw4nToJiW2oDAkKtajJEvZtHXRO-WM/edit?usp=sharing
You add this and all other public npm events with the following link:
https://calendar.google.com/calendar/embed?src=npmjs.com_oonluqt8oftrt0vmgrfbg6q6go%40group.calendar.google.com
A
Okay
and
we're
live
welcome
to
another
open
IRC
meeting
we
are
looking
to
the
agenda
should
be
posted
in
the
meeting
at
stock.
That
I've
shared
again.
Please
add
yourself
Danielle.
If
you
can
great
so
again,
some
housekeeping
introductions,
I,
think
most
people
know
who
we
all
are
on
the
call
so
far,
but
again
going
over
so
the
intentions
and
desired
outcomes.
Here
this
is
an
opportunity.
A
The
first
thing
on
the
docket
on
the
agenda
today
is
actually
something
that
continues
to
sort
of
spread
up
which
is
sort
of
the
funding
package.
Maintainer
is
the
support
drafts
that
the
package
maintenance
working
group
have
put
together
and
essentially
in
this
item,
I
think
is
specifically
tailored
towards
you
know
the
go
forward
strategy
for
NPM
and
what
we
can
do
sort
of
as
a
first
step
compared
to
the
longer
tail
ideal
solution
that
we
can
hopefully
get
to
over
time.
A
And
then
we
could
essentially
hide
that
that
prompter,
that
you
know
that
output,
if
need
be
with
the
no
fund
flag
and
then
running
NPM
fund,
would
essentially
bubble
up
the
information
very
similar
to
the
way
that
that
that
PR
looks
like
for
support
at
the
moment,
so
I've
updated
that
that
sort
of
draft
spec,
which
is
linked,
so
you
can
take
it
if
you
want
to
you,
can
take
a
look
at
that.
I'm,
not
sure
if
you
had
any
kind
of
initial
feedback
with
those
changes,
because
I
know
that's
changed
from
the
last
time.
A
A
A
So
that
that's
there's
some
good
discussion
there
in
terms
of
once
this
is
put
into
like
the
IPR
with
properly
drafted,
we
can
maybe
have
some
of
those
discussions
if
the
implementation
and
I'm
going
to
guess,
there's
gonna,
be
some
folks
that
are
are
gonna.
Have
some
questions
about
that
like
how
that
works
again.
A
I
think
the
intent
here
is
to
have
a
signal,
a
signal
to
the
community,
that
there
is
this
new
information
that
the
package
maintainer
is
providing
and
then
they
are,
you
know
they
will
be
suggested
to
run
the
NPM
fund
command,
to
learn
more
about
that
information
right.
So
to
discover
more
about
that,
this
was
a
really
good.
I
think
lays
the
foundation
for
further.
You
know
optimize
what
workflows
for
being
the
middleman
or
to
helping
our
middle
person
to
helping
people.
A
A
C
A
sorry
I
was
gonna
say
so
there
if
we
hint.
Basically,
we
want
this
in
six.
Thirteen
could
be
two
weeks
from
now.
I
think
we're
target
birth
is
a
three
weeks
from
now.
So
is
there
there's
meetings
with
all
these
other
committees
to
like
sort
of
get
the
RFC
push
and
like
is
there
enough
time
in
that
window
to
sort
of
go
through
all
the
process?
That
needs
to
happen
for
because
it
seems
like
the
RFC
at
the
moment
is
quite
raw
because
we
haven't
actually
proposed
the
rear.
A
angry
yeah.
A
A
Approval
from
some
of
those
folks
again,
I
I,
think
the
way
that
the
draft
it
though
the
spec
is
drafted
or
this
RC
is
drafted,
is
in
a
way
that
allows
it
to
be
pretty
flexible
and,
ideally
is.
You
know,
allows
for
change
over
time,
especially
because
you
know
it's,
it's
so
limited
in
scope,
so
yeah.
A
Well,
essentially,
what
will
happen
here
is
I
will
format
this
into
like
a
proper
RFC
format
for
for
us,
submit
it
as
a
PR
and
then
go
back
to
the
package
maintenance
working
group
to
say
that
this
is
the
intent
to
to
ship
functionality
around
this.
That
I
think
a
three
week
window
is
is,
should
be,
should
be
good
enough
to
to
have
those
discussions
I
think
so.
The
ideal
is
yeah
within
two
to
three
weeks.
That
will
will
land
at
least
one
or
two
meetings,
with
with
that
working
group
to
ensure
that
we're
aligned.
C
D
A
D
A
So
that
Daniel,
that's
exactly
where
our
thoughts
were
going
yesterday
and
I
was
like
who
is
on
the
call,
was
also
having
similar
thoughts
in
terms
of
the
phase
two
of
of
this
type
of
spec.
Again,
the
the
focus
here
for
us
was
to
try
to
drill
into
and
narrow
in
on
the
most
important
aspects
of
the
work
that
was
being
done
in
package,
maintenance
and,
and
so
that
was
specifically
the
monetarily
viable
option
of
support
versus
the
sort
of
SLA
standards.
A
We
want
to
focus
on
this
because
we
felt
it
was
the
most
meaningful
work,
and
we
also
felt
and
I
feel
personally
subjectively
that
the
this
is
the
this
is
the
right
approach
for
for
these
fields
where,
as
you
know,
in
the
future,
potentially
we
could
have
modify
a
modified
Packer
mint.
That
has
similar
information
going
forward.
But
this
is
a
for
good,
first
step
to
put
it
into
package.json
and
and
provide
some
means
of
tooling
to
actually
make
it
useful
information.
A
So
in
terms
of
that,
so
there
are
a
couple
takeaways
again
for
me
to
take
away
is
to
to
formalize
this
document
in
the
way
that
we
ask
other
people
to
create
our
C's
and
I'll,
make
a
PR
against
the
am/pm,
RS,
RFC's
repo
and
then
I'll
be
bringing
this
up
in
as
a
agenda
item
or
an
issue
with
the
package
maintenance
working
group
and
everybody
should
feel
free
to
join
that
call.
They
have
I
think
weekly
calls
that
are
bi-weekly
calls
that
change
in
time,
so
that
more
folks
can
attend.
A
A
It's
exciting
to
think
it's
exciting,
to
think
that
you
know
we're
we're
gonna
I'll
and
something
that
hopefully
really
helps
the
community
right,
yeah
cool,
moving
on
so
essentially
exposing
ogress
metadata.
Some
of
these
you
know
I,
think,
require
Isaac's
input
because
he's
being
primarily
the
person
developing
on
arborist
for
now,
I'm,
not
sure
if
anybody
else
has
any
insight
into
this,
our
RFC
I.
A
A
A
It
sounds
like
a
good
idea:
I
think
you
need
to
flush
out,
maybe
some
of
the
details
of
how
to
actually
support
that,
because
you
would
be
mounting
a
whole
bunch
of
that
I
guess
metadata
into
the
environment.
I'm,
not
sure
if
there's
any
security
concerns
with
that.
If
there's
any
kind
of
you
know
performance
concern,
so
I,
don't.
A
A
C
C
I'm
not
sure
what
the
like
there's
to
rfcs
here
right,
like
the
51
is
the
like,
expose
iris
metadata
to
lifecycle
scripts
and
then
the
13
is
don't
add
meta
data
to
packaging
Jason.
So
it's
like
I'm
assuming
Isaak
is
move
it
removing
it
and
then
also
he
created
one
two
or
I
guess
we
were
gathered
created
one
two
or
Vincent
created
one
to
add
it
to
the
lytic
cycle.
Screw
nice
close.
C
A
C
A
That's
not
adding
the
metadata
package.json,
specifically
right,
so
don't
mutate
package.json,
which
is
make
sense
versus
what
I
think.
The
ask
here
is
bubble
up.
The
metadata
information
that
gets
generated
when
you're
building
a
tree,
so
our
burst,
is
gonna.
Have
that
that
many
days
gonna
live
in
a
brand-new
file
called
a
burst
metadata
JSON,
where
it
previously
would
have
lived
in
package
JSON,
because
we
mutated
package
JSON
and
so
now.
The
idea
here
in
this
in
Vincents
artist
RFC,
is
to
then
pass
that
to
any
lifecycle
script.
A
A
A
C
C
C
A
A
A
C
C
A
A
Release
label
and
it
looks
good
it'd,
be
nice
to
land
on
yeah
for
sure.
That's
I
think
why
I
put
on
the
agenda,
because
I
knew
that
this
was
something
simple,
so
cool
moving
on
so
48
now
this
has
been
open
for
a
while
and
I
know.
There's
work
done
associated
with
it,
I've
even
interfaced,
with
Lachlan
a
little
bit
who
wrote
the
implementation
again
it
just
sounded
like
Isaac
was
the
only
one
with
like
some
currents
and
concerns,
and
not
the
only
one,
but
maybe
there's
concerns
about
when
exactly
the
execution
of
these
scripts.
A
It
would
happen
so
I
think
the
RFC
outlines
linking
any
hooks
that
are
found
in,
like
the
hooks
folder
very
similar
to
the
way
we
like
wire
up
I've
been
like
scripts
that
I
found
had
been,
and
these
would
be
anything
in
that
folder.
It
would
be
related
to
you,
lifecycle,
hooks,
so
preinstalled,
post
install
is.
A
C
C
A
A
Yeah,
so
there
is
work,
that's
associated
with
this
Arcee
and
I
know
that
he's
spoken
spoken
out
about
it,
hoping
that
we
could
land
it
as
it's
been
open
for
a
few
months,
and
you
know
he
did
the
work
to
to
wire
everything
up.
I
mean
it
seems
straightforward
to
me,
but
that
might
be
a
naive
understanding
of
the
work.
A
Under
discussion,
yes
under
discussion
in
suburb
measure,
okay,
so
I've
labeled.
It
now
we'll
circle
back
on
this.
As
we
talk
more
about
NPM,
seven
work,
then,
okay,
going
forward
the
last
three
are
more
about
this
call,
specifically
the
there's
going
to
be
a
collaboration
summit,
that's
being
held
by
the
open
J's
foundation
at
the
node
interactive
Montreal
conference.
That's
happening
in
December
Roy
came
up
with
the
idea
that
we
should
propose
having
this.
A
This
call
essentially
happen
in
in
real
life
in
person,
with
a
number
of
the
folks
that
are
on
the
working
groups
in
the
noted
foundation.
That
art
should
be
there
and
having
the
opportunity
to
talk
with
people
face
to
face
about
package
maintenance
modules
and
essentially
the
work
that
we're
doing
here
at
NPM
would
be
pretty
opportunistic
and
we
should
take
advantage
of
that,
and
so
I
think.
A
The
action
item
here
is
to
propose
having
that
meeting
and
booking
out
time
at
the
collaboration
summit
to
have
us
us
essentially
be
discussing
the
future
state
of
and
the
work
being
done
by
NPM
with
those
folks
and
invite
people
to
come.
Talk
with
us,
I
know
that
I
I'm,
going
to
and
I
am
working
to
try
to
carve
out
budget
and
time
for
us
to
get
over
there,
and
so
it's
not
100%
confirmed
right
now,
but
for
sure
Roy
will
be
at
at
the
conference.
A
E
A
A
A
Right,
that's
right,
okay
and
so
yeah
the
ideal
idea
there
would
be.
We
tried
to
book
one
of
the
rooms
and
try
to
book
time
and
ideally
get
people
some
support,
for
you
know
the
work
that
we're
doing
and
and
it
will
be
a
good
opportunity
to
to
collaborate
in
person,
so
click
away
here
is
just
make
that
proposal
happen.
There's
an
open
issue
thread
for
I.
Think
proposals
for
the
summit,
so
yeah
I
can
take
that
away.
Unless
somebody
else
wants
to
champion
that.
A
A
E
E
A
A
You
see,
they're
dying,
you
know,
they're
active
in
the
open,
J's
foundation,
working
groups
and
all
those
meetings,
and
so
trying
to
I
think
make
a
meeting
time
and
day
that
more
folks
can
attend
would
be,
would
be
good
or
to
switch
the
cadence
so
potentially
doing
it
earlier
or
later
and
varying
when,
when
it
happens,
so
we
recover
there
more
bases
would
be
good.
So
I'm
not
sure.
A
B
A
C
Suggest
so
this
is
like
an
idea:
I
took
from
volleyball
league,
it
was
around
here.
They
have
three
time
slots
and
your
team
basically
rotates
through
each
of
the
time
slots
every
week.
So
every
every
time
you
do
with
the
thing
it's
a
different
time,
but
there
are
only
three
of
them,
and
so
you
can
sort
of
like
know
what
time
is
supposed
to
be
at
it's
not
like
so
confusing
I.
Think
it's
like,
oh
god.
What,
because
that's
the
problem
was
like
Oh.
What
times
it
was.
A
C
I
think
that
thing
rotating
your
days
will
be
more
challenging
because
then
you're
gonna
keep
the
same
time
but
different
days,
and
that,
like
the
day,
might
be
correct
by
the
time.
I
think
that,
like
we're,
we're
gonna
times
outside
so
days
to
the
moment,
right
so
I
think
that
catering
to
that
first
and
then,
if
we
don't
miss,
aficionado,
I
change
at
all,
then
perhaps
a
different
day
would
suffice.
But
if
we're
doing
it
by
weekly
cadence,
it
would
be
really
easy
to
like
after
two
months.
He
like
knows
it's
not
working.
C
A
E
A
E
Another
point
that
taking
consideration
is
like
trying
to
follow
up
with
people
that
have
proposed
on
the
only
RFC's
in
the
community
and
try
to
follow
up
with
them
and
then
maybe
use
the
idea
of
having
multiple
choices
and
see
like
what
choice
is
more
popular
from
among
the
group
of
people
that
have
current
RFC
open.
That
would
be
interested
in
attending
yeah.
A
A
Sure
yeah
so
I
think
going
forward.
The
idea
would
be
that
if
you
want
to
have
something
brought
up
in
this
meeting,
then
it
should
have
your
issue
or
your
PR
should
have
the
label
agenda
and
what
we'll
do
is
we'll
source
the
agenda
going
forward
by
essentially
just
querying
for
the
issues
and
PRS
with
that
label,
and
that
will
be
how
this
got.
You
know
this
happens
going
forward
versus
having
it
arbitrarily
defined,
as
it
has
been
today.
C
A
A
Okay.
The
last
note
with
about
15
minutes
left,
is
announcements
so
very
similar
to
what
claudia
was
mentioning
getting
this
call
and
and
the
items
on
this
call
on
people's
radar
sooner.
How
can
we
do
that,
whether
that's
tweeting
about
it
or
being
better
at
creating
agenda
earlier
on
pinning
that
agenda?
You
know,
potentially
you
know
promoting
it
in
various
places.
So
far
it's
been
very
manual.
The
first
three
meetings
have
been
I'll
just
run
from
whatever
spare
time.
E
A
E
C
Probably
a
way
of
automating
that
like
if
we,
if
we
had
like
a
standard
like
agenda,
lock,
we
kind
of
do
now,
but
if,
if
it
had
the
links
to
the
RFC's
or
something
there's,
probably
some
Probot
thing,
they
could
just
like
scrape
through
and
then
like
paying
all
the
people
and
let
them
know
that
they
were
discussing
their
thing
in
the
next
meeting.
When
we
we
would
just
have
to
be
a
bit
more
proactive
about.
What's
gonna
be
on
the
next
agenda,
I
mean
that
could
be
better
like
trailing
item
in
each
meeting.
A
So
again,
it's
been
mostly
manual
today
and
if
we
could
get
automation,
setup
I
know
that
the
node
foundation
open
Jas
foundation
both
use
some
like
a/c,
automated
agenda
creation
and
and
I
went
digging
in
it
to
see
if
I
could
modify
it
to
ensure
that
new
issues
that
were
created
with
the
agenda
got
pinned
and
it's
pretty
old
code.
So
I
wouldn't
suggest
that
we
use
it.
A
C
A
B
I
was
just
thinking
that
we,
if
we
actually
get
a
confirmation
of
certain
people
of
the
community,
to
assist
this
meetings,
we
can
promote
that
as
well.
On
Twitter,
like
imagine
it,
we
can
send
a
tweet
saying,
like
these
person
from
Microsoft
or
from
whatever
West
is
joining
AIESEC
is
gonna,
be
there
joining
us
to
talk
about
the
news,
I,
don't
know,
font
support,
NPM
command
and
then
link
to
the
meaning
or
whatever
I
think
we.
There
is
a
lot
of
things.
We
can
stop
to
market
better.
A
Sure
yeah
I
didn't
expect
us
to
start
off
with,
like
50
people
showing
up
to
the
call
yet
but
I
think
yeah
over
time
that
it
ideally
becomes
more
and
more
useful
for
for
folks
and
yeah
I.
Think
promotion
through
you
know.
The
the
people
that
are
collaborating
through
their
networks
would
be
a
good
way
of
of
ideally
getting
fresh
ideas.
Fresh
people
in
here.
B
A
Yeah
I
I
like
that
again
going
back
to
maybe
you
know
Wes
or
are
the
people
are
Tierney
or
the
other
people
that
have
joined
us
previously
and
asking
them.
You
know
if
they'd
be
okay
with
like
retweeting
or
moding,
when
they're
gonna
join
the
call
that'd
be
you
know
it's
it's
pretty
easy
to
ask
for
that
kind
of.
D
A
Sure
and
I
think
if
we
do,
we
were
lucky
here.
The
marketing
folks
were
able
to
do
a
tweet
about
an
hour
before
the
call
which
was
nice.
But
if
you
know
it's,
it's
I
I
could
have
easily
have
done
a
tweet
earlier
this
morning
or
scheduled
something
I
think
and
that
way
we
can
maybe
get
some
organic
eyeballs
and
going
forward.
We'll
have
live
streams,
so
I
know
this
is
recorded
and
will
be
posted
retro
actively,
but
going
forward
we'll
have
live
streams.
A
C
A
If
is
there
I
guess,
there's
an
action
item
there
to
automate
the
agenda
creation.
Is
that
so?
Oh
yeah?
If
you
know
okay,
are
you
gonna?
Do
you
think
you
can
own
that
Mike,
yeah,
okay,
that'd,
be
awesome?
I,
don't
think
we
need
a
RC
to
be
generated
for
that
I
think
you
can
just
do
the
the
work
and
whether
it's
a
give
action
or
whatever
it
looks
like
to
to
create
essentially
an
issue
with
I
think
the
scope
of
that
is
to
create
issue.