doc: add minutes for meeting 2017-05-15

PR-URL: nodejs#217
Fixes: nodejs#213

doc/meetings/2017-05-15.md

@@ -0,0 +1,71 @@
+# Node.js LTS meeting 05 May 2017
+
+- Github issue: https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/213
+- Meeting Video: https://youtu.be/UFBMF9ndBDo
+- Next meeting: 05 June 2017
+- Previous meetings: https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/201
+
+## Present
+
+- Michael Dawson (@mhdawson)
+- Myles Borins (@MylesBorins)
+- Jeremiah Senkpiel (@fishrock123)
+- Sam Roberts (@sam-github)
+- Gibson Fahnestock (@gibfahn)
+
+
+## Agenda
+
+### nodejs/LTS
+- meta: updated messaging regarding dates [#141](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/pull/141)
+- Clarify what happens with odd-numbered releases in April [#128](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/pull/128)
+- meta: charter the LTS Working Group [nodejs/CTC#122](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/pull/122)
+- Potential Semver Minor Backports [#177](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/issues/188)
+
+
+## Minutes
+
+### meta: updated messaging regarding dates [#141](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/pull/141)
+
+All: No objections
+
+
+### Clarify what happens with odd-numbered releases in April [#128](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/pull/128)
+
+- Myles: I’m not sure we need to declare a support statement at all, we
+  definitely don’t want to call it maintenance, that conflates it with LTS
+  maintenance mode, which is different.
+- Sam: if we describe odd-numbered as stable then do we need maintenance?
+- Myles: we shouldn’t call odd-numbered releases stable, they are current
+  because they don’t have a support process.
+- Myles: We could say: “After the next Current release line comes out, there
+  will be no more scheduled releases. Further releases will be agreed on a
+  case-by-case basis.”
+- Michael: how about: "An odd-numbered major release will cease to be actively 
+  updated when the subsequent even-numbered major release is cut."
+- All: agreed
+- Myles: I think the bigger issue is that we are inconsistent about how stable
+  current is, and whether it’s recommended for more general use.
+- Myles to raise CTC issue
+
+### meta: charter the LTS Working Group [nodejs/CTC#122](https://github.com/nodejs/CTC/pull/122)
+
+ - Myles: I think the release team should include the LTS team, and a team of
+   people who do releases.
+ - Myles: Also the current Release WG should have meetings, even infrequent
+   ones, that would help us stay on top of our release process.
+ - Michael: I think it’s still good to have a `releasers` team under the
+   proposed Release WG that actually handles the release process, so that we
+   can have a wider Release team that aren’t required to all have release
+   access.
+- Jeremiah: Yeah, there probably will be a lot of overlap between what the
+  current Release and LTS teams talk about.
+- Jeremiah: If we do this, then the Release team might not all need to have the
+  responsibility to do releases.
+- Myles: So maybe the rule should be that to add someone to the releasers team
+  requires signoff from the CTC.
+- Michael: We need to make sure the other Release team members are on board.
+- Michael to write up a first draft of the proposal, Myles can review before
+  the issue is created.
+
+