2026 May transcript, record empty summaries

Author: gesa

meetings/2026-05/may-19.md

@@ -1655,12 +1655,8 @@ CDA: Thank you. All right. I think that brings us to the end of day one.
 
 ### Speaker's Summary of Key Points
 
-* List
-* of
-* things
+The speaker did not provide a summary.
 
 ### Conclusion
 
-* List
-* of
-* things
+The speaker did not provide a conclusion.

meetings/2026-05/may-20.md

@@ -758,15 +758,11 @@ DLM: Yeah. Let's just do I've heard lots of support for stage 1. Maybe we should
 
 ### Speaker's Summary of Key Points
 
-* List
-* of
-* things
+The speaker did not provide a summary.
 
 ### Conclusion
 
-* List
-* of
-* things
+The speaker did not provide a conclusion.
 
 ## Module Scope Ceiling
 
@@ -775,20 +771,7 @@ Presenter: Zbigniew Tenerowicz (ZTZ)
 * [proposal](https://github.com/endojs/proposal-module-global)
 * [slides](https://github.com/endojs/proposal-module-global/tree/main/slides)
 
-### Speaker's Summary of Key Points
-
-* Status update: We intend to address the problem statement of the proposal by severing the connection from `ModuleEnvironmentRecord` to `GlobalEnvironmentRecord` by replacing `OuterEnv` with what we would like to call `ScopeCeiling`.
-* Open question: is the `OuterEnv` use in the spec a spec fiction?
-* Open question: How would we expose `ScopeCeiling` to be used?
-* Conversation included revisiting motivating use-cases and a mention that the updated version may be more palatable to implementers
-
-### Conclusion
-
-* None, just an update
-
-DLM: And USA are you good to take over chairing again?
-
-USA: Yep. I am. Thank you Dan. Let's move on then to module global status update. ZTZ are you there? Yeah. I see you.
+USA: Let's move on then to module global status update. ZTZ are you there? Yeah. I see you.
 
 ZTZ: Yes. I'll make sure this is visible. Okay. So I'm back with a proposal. But it's a completely different proposal now. So previously we got to stage one with just the problem statement. A way to evaluate a module and its dependencies in the context of a new global scope within the same realm. Now I would like to go through an update for how I hope to make that feasible. And the motivating cases did not change. But how much they're motivating might have changed. So I'm just pointing out that the severity of supply-chain security has increased *a little* since I last brought this up. And I also got support from 1Password. Which is in the context of the *LavaMoat* project. But specifically the interesting part from that statement is that Our current implementation is using the `with` *statements*. Which introduces some compatibility and performance issues. And this particular proposal would help alleviate some of the compatibility and performance issues..
 
@@ -914,6 +897,17 @@ JRL: Yeah. Exactly. No, I don't believe it's frozen. And Michael agreed earlier.
 
 USA: Great. Let's try that then. Thank you.
 
+### Speaker's Summary of Key Points
+
+* Status update: We intend to address the problem statement of the proposal by severing the connection from `ModuleEnvironmentRecord` to `GlobalEnvironmentRecord` by replacing `OuterEnv` with what we would like to call `ScopeCeiling`.
+* Open question: is the `OuterEnv` use in the spec a spec fiction?
+* Open question: How would we expose `ScopeCeiling` to be used?
+* Conversation included revisiting motivating use-cases and a mention that the updated version may be more palatable to implementers
+
+### Conclusion
+
+* None, just an update
+
 ## Iterator Join
 
 Presenter: Michael Ficarra (MF)
@@ -1239,17 +1233,11 @@ GB: Thank you very much. I very much appreciate having no follow-ups further. So
 
 ### Speaker's Summary of Key Points
 
-* List
-* of
-* things
-
-But to summarize, we will make the normative change that allows source phase imports to participate in ambiguous re-export deduplication so that it does not throw if multiple star re-export statements resolve a source phase imports binding, consistent with namespaces and potentially other system bindings on module records. And because of the nature of it, it doesn't require an explicit specification change, but will naturally be the behavior under the current rebase.
+We will make the normative change that allows source phase imports to participate in ambiguous re-export deduplication so that it does not throw if multiple star re-export statements resolve a source phase imports binding, consistent with namespaces and potentially other system bindings on module records. And because of the nature of it, it doesn't require an explicit specification change, but will naturally be the behavior under the current rebase.
 
 ### Conclusion
 
-* List
-* of
-* things
+The speaker did not provide a conclusion.
 
 ## ESM Phase Imports normative PRs
 
@@ -1382,20 +1370,6 @@ CDA: I think what we should do at this point because we are now a couple of minu
 
 GB: Okay. I would be happy to arrange a continuation and maybe myself and Ron can aim to have some of these discussions until then. And then you can progress onto the next item on the agenda
 
-???: All right. Sure. Thank you.
-
-### Speaker's Summary of Key Points
-
-* List
-* of
-* things
-
-### Conclusion
-
-* List
-* of
-* things
-
 ## Thenable Curtailment status update
 
 Presenter: Matthew Gaudet (MAG)

meetings/2026-05/may-21.md

@@ -1212,28 +1212,6 @@ DLM: Okay.
 
 NRO: One thing, GB technically, was the author of the proposal, but that was 10 years ago, so I think he can review whatever the new spec text would be.
 
-DLM: Okay, well, I believe that is the end of the agenda for this part of the day, and the only thing that we could really move up would require GB, and I think he's not available until after the break, so I think with that, we might just end up taking a longer break unless GB happens to be on the call, but I think NRO just said he's not, so.
-
-DLM: Yeah, I guess with that, let's move on to the break, and we'll just have to be a longer break than usual.
-
-JRL: So we're going to 15:20? s
-
-CDA: I think that what might make sense is GB’s constraint is starting I believe, yeah, at, at 3:00 PM. So the break was going to start at 3:00 and go till 3:20. So I think in this case, let's try to be back here at 3:00 and so that gives you all a 25-minute break. Does that sound okay?
-
-DLM: I'm not sure GB is aware of that change, though, but we can bring him at 3 o'clock and see if he's available then.
-
-### Speaker's Summary of Key Points
-
-* List
-* of
-* things
-
-### Conclusion
-
-* List
-* of
-* things
-
 ## Continuation: ESM Phase Imports normative PRs
 
 Presenter: Guy Bedford (GB)
@@ -1367,14 +1345,11 @@ JRL: Perfect. So I think, GB, we got consistency for your change and there's a d
 
 ### Speaker's Summary of Key Points
 
-* Consensus was obtained for PR #61—supporting cross-realm imports of module sources
 * Further discussion on structs proposal identity will be undertaken further before making changes to the module source identity model to ensure alignment
 
 ### Conclusion
 
-* List
-* of
-* things
+* Consensus was obtained for PR #61—supporting cross-realm imports of module sources
 
 ## Continuation: RegExp Buffer Boundaries