doc: add minutes for meeting 13 June 2018 #552
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,111 @@ | ||
| # Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2018-06-13 | ||
|
|
||
| ## Links | ||
|
|
||
| * **Recording**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxjWOgC1U9k | ||
| * **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/551 | ||
|
|
||
| ## Present | ||
|
|
||
| * Anna Henningsen @addaleax (TSC) | ||
| * Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (TSC) | ||
| * Franziska Hinkelmann @fhinkel (TSC) | ||
| * Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 (TSC) | ||
| * Michael Dawson @mhdawson (TSC) | ||
| * Myles Borins @MylesBorins (TSC) | ||
| * Rod Vagg @rvagg (TSC) | ||
|
|
||
| ## Agenda | ||
|
|
||
| ### Announcements | ||
|
|
||
| *Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting. | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/node | ||
|
|
||
| * process: add allowedEnvironmentNodeFlags property [#19335](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/19335) | ||
| * Had some initial discussions, will pick up again next time when we have more | ||
| people and more TSC members have reviewed. | ||
| * seems likes needs TSC champion to push forward. | ||
|
|
||
| * Nominating bcoe as a collaborator [#20242](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/20242) | ||
| * Seems like everybody on the issue is +1, any objections. Myles will find somebody to | ||
| Onboard. | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/TSC | ||
|
|
||
| * Tracking issue for updating TSC on Board Meetings [#476](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/476) | ||
| * Nothing to add since last board meeting | ||
| * Work on getting CommComm charter in place for Director etc. | ||
|
|
||
| * Strategic Initiatives - Tracking Issue [#423](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/423) | ||
| * Modules | ||
| * Have gotten through a larger number of the use cases | ||
| * PR open for meta require | ||
| * Starting to talk about deadlines | ||
| * Main contentious topics are about transparent interop, module specifier resolution | ||
| * Package name maps proposal from Domenic, to allow install time tooling to generate | ||
| manifest to be consumed by browser to allow bare imports. May provide path to being | ||
| to use modules in both browsers and Node.js without changes. Does not affect CJS | ||
|
|
||
| * N-API | ||
| * Continued push on doc for node-addon-api | ||
| * Looks like we’ll have workshop and a few talks at Node Summit | ||
| * Proposal for adding new APIs as experimental | ||
| * Proposal for guidance on adding new APIs | ||
|
|
||
| * OpenSSL Evolution | ||
| * Pull request 21282, would like some additional opinions from TSC members. Relates to security issue, | ||
| CVE is assigned and details are public but not in OpenSSL release yet as its low severity. | ||
| * Anna, would this be considered a breaking change if not a security issue? | ||
|
|
||
| * Workers | ||
| * Not too much new since PR landed, may include in next 10.x release (it is behind a flag) | ||
| * working out minor issues. | ||
|
|
||
| * TSC Governance | ||
| * Some discussion on code owners, mixed feelings | ||
| * Discussion around backports, and our definition of done. Should we not close | ||
| pull requests until all backports audited, landed etc. | ||
|
|
||
| * New Streams APIs | ||
| * Progress at collab summit, Jerimiah, fs-source and fs-sync modules, more status | ||
| In fishrock123/bob repo. Nothing new since collab summit. | ||
|
|
||
| * Proposal: add all new core modules under a scope? (too late for http2) [#389](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/389) | ||
| * Myles, we need namespaces and we need to move on faster than we have to. Every | ||
| time we add something new we have the shadowing issue with npm | ||
| * We have a number of PRs open (mime, brotili) and other recent ones have had | ||
| collisions. Also was issue for fs.promises. | ||
| * Questions about what kind of symbol we use, Myles highly recommends @nodejs | ||
| namespace | ||
| * TC39 is also looking into namespaces as a language feature, advice from committee was | ||
| not to wait for it (there are no proposals now, likely more than a year out). | ||
| * Can’t just be a directory, security concern about versions that don’t have the namespace as | ||
| people coule publish modules with the same name in those versions and they could be used | ||
| by accident instead of what was expected (a built in module). | ||
| . * Jeremiah only move to namespaces once. Also align with returning promisified APIs. | ||
| * Myles that could be a 11/2 year to 2 years from now. | ||
| * Let’s leave on the agenda. | ||
| * Anna, may make sense to ask if we have enough engagement from those outside the our | ||
| bubble. | ||
| * single sentence question -> should node namespace modules? along with context. | ||
|
There was a problem hiding this comment. So what are the action items here? Last time it was “wait a week and revisit” There was a problem hiding this comment. I think the next action is to continue the discussion in the issue tracker. There is no clear consensus in the TSC members one way or the other. In addition, I don't think there was the consensus that we needed to rush and have a vote either as the feeling is that there is still work to be done as part of our consensus seeking model. In particular, I think I remember a request to better frame the pros/cons and move people toward a shared understanding (for example it being harder to add modules is seen but a con by some and a pro by others). If anybody else had some details on next actions to add please comment. There was a problem hiding this comment. Just to add, the week before not enough people had reviewed the issue to have a discussion, this time there was a good discussion, but not one that resulted in a decision one way or the other or agreement it had reached the point were a vote was appropriate. There was a problem hiding this comment. What I'm hoping to have is a TSC discussion that some kind of "non-bare" identifier is needed for all new core modules. The details of that certainly can be hashed out in GitHub. |
||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/admin | ||
|
|
||
| * Propose team discussion policy [#121](https://github.com/nodejs/admin/pull/121) | ||
| * some discussion, but nobody jumped in with strong feelings one way or the other. | ||
| * Myles, we instead more likely need discussions on what is appropriate to discuss in the | ||
| repo where it is not public as we want as much to be public as possible. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Q&A, Other | ||
|
|
||
| * All questions comment in thread, nothing to add. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Upcoming Meetings | ||
|
|
||
| * **Node.js Foundation Calendar**: https://nodejs.org/calendar | ||
|
|
||
| Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar. | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is not, in fact, any more of a concern than new bare core modules - a namespace on npm is a user - and node would own whatever user it was, so it would be impossible for anyone to publish a module under that namespace.