diff --git a/meetings/2024-01-24.md b/meetings/2024-01-24.md new file mode 100644 index 00000000..66823f80 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2024-01-24.md @@ -0,0 +1,116 @@ +# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2024-01-24 + +## Links + +* **Recording**: + * seems like the recording dropped at 34mins, not sure why, unfortunately because + there was a lot of good discussion +* **GitHub Issue**: + +## Present + +* Antoine du Hamel @aduh95 (voting member) +* Geoffrey Booth @GeoffreyBooth (voting member) +* James Snell @jasnell (voting member) +* Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (voting member) +* Chengzhong Wu @legendecas (voting member) +* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (voting member) +* Moshe Atlow @MoLow (voting member) +* Richard Lau @richardlau (voting member) +* Ruy Adorno @ruyadorno (voting member) +* Myles Borins @MylesBorins (regular member) + +## Agenda + +### Announcements + +* Antoine - 2 successful collaborator nominations - lemire and zcbenz + +### CPC and Board Meeting Updates + +*Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting. + +### nodejs/node + +* enable corepack by default [#50963](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/50963) + * Myles, speaking as fellow collaborator + * Believe questions are being framed incorrectly + * Question is about enabling yarn, pump and having them just work + * When looking at what Node.js is shipping only 10% is coming from supported Node.js + versions, lots still come from older versions + * yarn and pnpm have large enough downloads, + * npm don’t want to support/integrate with corepack as it does not fit with view of how + package managers should be integrated + * corepack was started due to context that limited willingness to add yarn/pnpm to Node.js, + but extended beyond that. + * believe we should make yarn and pnpm just work, but that does not necessarily mean + corepack + * should define governance for supporting clients + * Michael + * Need to factor in work on the project to support any particular solution + * Richard, if npm was not currently bundled we probably would not bundle, so if we define + criteria for bundling, npm would likely not meet them. Situation is not equitable, but we have + historical baggage and those constrain what is reasonable. + * Michael a bit of a response + * Geoffrey + * Sounds great in abstract that we let yarn/pnpm run without doing anything but at what + cost? + * It’s finding an option with the right cost/value balance + * Myles + * Question, is are we going to ship these and take on responsibility for the clients + * Corepack tries to take those on, but does it actually let us say “no” to us taking on + responsibility + * James, do believe it’s an important distinction that it does not bundle the clients that should + not be lost. Exploring different options does make sense. + * Myles yarn, pnpm just working can lead people to thinking its the same, which is a concern. + * Myles in support of finding equitable environment + * Richard - when installing things, having up front questions; that is how npx works; + corepack like npx downloads software that we are not responsible for. + * Geoffrey, somebody needs to be champion to finding consensus. Issues and PRs need to + be opened to capture goals, etc. + * Ruy, in the first discussion back in 2020, there were lots of questions back them, and + agreement was that we should run an experiment. + * Geoffrey, just because we skipped finding consensus earlier, does not mean that we have + to accept implementation. + * Richard, unfair to characterize as non-consensus + * Geoffrey, consensus as experiment is quite different than implementation + * Michael, Ruys point I think is that it should not be a surprise that there are still divergent + opinions because those were raised and what was agreed was only an experiment. + * Geoffrey, will post comment that TSC members who were present, best way to move + forward is to define goals, and work on agreement on those. Getting those PR’d into some + Node.js doc even if that requires a TSC vote is a prereq. + +* lib: promote process.binding/_tickCallback to runtime deprecation [#50687](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/50687) + * skipped for this week + +* lib: rewrite AsyncLocalStorage without async_hooks [#48528](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/48528) + * @lgendecas will check with Stephen if this can be removed from agenda, there was progress + on the V8 front, so it might be unblocked. + +### nodejs/admin + +* Redesign of Node.js Website [#818](https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/818) + * removed from agenda, as presentation was made last week. + +* Events / Collaborator Summits for 2024 [#814](https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/814) + * Have confirmation that they can host the collaborator summit, took a while due to estimate of + attendance. Have space for 30-35 people on April 3-4. + * Question is if there is enough time to get people to show up to event. Maybe we should do a + poll, if we get enough people then we can move forward, otherwise we can move to some + time later in the year. + * Michael, is it possible to have Node.js track? + * Joyee, not sure but should run survey in parallel + * Joyee, people ok with the plan. + * Have space for 30-35 people on April 3-4, in London + * run poll to see how many people are planning to attend the summit + * wait for a week to see how many people are planning to go. + * If number is enough for critical mass, if not then we should plan to delay. + * Ruy, propose hosting collaborator summit collocated with conference in Colombia, end of October this year + +## Strategic Initiatives + +## Upcoming Meetings + +* **Node.js Project Calendar**: + +Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar.