doc: add minutes for meeting 2020-02-12

PR-URL: #356
Fixes: #354
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <cjihrig@gmail.com>
Reviewed-By: Michael Dawson <michael_dawson@ca.ibm.com>

wg-meetings/2020-02-12.md

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+# Node.js Foundation Diagnostics WorkGroup Meeting 2020-02-12
+
+## Links
+
+* **Recording**: https://youtu.be/oyl6-HYBw9w
+* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/diagnostics/issues/354
+
+## Present
+
+* Diagnostics team: @nodejs/diagnostics
+* David Anderson (@daviande)
+* Matheus Marchini (@mmarchini)
+* Michael Dawson (@mhdawson)
+* Peter Marton (@hekike)
+* Ruben Bridgewater (@BridgeAR)
+
+## Agenda
+
+## Announcements
+
+*Extracted from **diag-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests from the
+**nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+### nodejs/diagnostics
+
+* Future of llnode [#355](https://github.com/nodejs/diagnostics/issues/355)
+ * Mattheus: proposing to remove review restrictions because other maintainers 
+   are less active and this is blocking to make progress on important things
+   like Node 12.x release. This one took months and we fell behind the LTS
+   schedule. Which prevented people from using llnode on Node 12.x. Because of
+   the nature of llnode it needs rapid iteration to keep it sync with V8
+   upgrades.
+ * Michael: we could introduce something like after some time it can land if
+   nobody looks at it.
+ * Matheus: that could work
+ * Michael: what would be the reasonable time for this auto approval window?
+ * Mattheus: how about 3-4 days?
+ * Michael: is it under node/*
+ * Matheus: yes
+ * Peter: how to announce this change?
+ * Matheus: I’ll open a PR and ping diagnostics and llnode teams
+ * Consensus was made on “auto approval after 3 days”
+ * Peter: do you want to discuss more on the future aspect?
+ * Matheus: this was the important one, more contributors would be good and I’m
+   thinking about a refactor that would make entry bar for new contributors
+   easier.
+
+* reportVersion semantics are not defined 
+  [#349](https://github.com/nodejs/diagnostics/issues/349)
+  * Peter asked why have a separate version number from Node.js version, and if
+    there were precedents of doing that
+  * Number is separate because a major Node.js version might not change the
+    report format. It's easier for tools consuming the report to deal with a
+    sequential number separated from the Node.js version
+  * N-API also has its own version not tied to Node.js version
+* Proposal to drive Diagnostics WG initiatives through user journeys 
+  [#295](https://github.com/nodejs/diagnostics/issues/295)
+  * We discussed memory leaks user journey and tooling (see docs below)
+  * Ran out of time, we'll continue this user journey on the next meeting
+* Diagnostics "Best Practices" Guide? 
+  [#211](https://github.com/nodejs/diagnostics/issues/211)
+  * Nothing to discuss
+* \[async_hooks\] stable API - tracking issue 
+  [#124](https://github.com/nodejs/diagnostics/issues/124)
+  * Nothing to discuss
+
+## User Journey Deep Dive: Memory Leak
+https://docs.google.com/document/d/16PeoMhREmJxSbrpyom9Uypl2lJuMsqAfB96oocDTPwQ/edit#
+
+## Q&A, Other
+
+## Upcoming Meetings
+
+* **Node.js Foundation Calendar**: https://nodejs.org/calendar
+
+Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar.