doc: 2019-04-24 notes

Refs: nodejs#317

doc/meetings/2019-04-24.md

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
+# Node.js Foundation Modules Team Meeting 2019-04-24
+
+* **Recording**:  N/A due to technical problems 😭
+* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/317
+* **Minutes Google Doc**: https://docs.google.com/document/d/12hKVk4C9PNkHHZoOQA6I2Y_oUlAPteDTnEIyyp9Odqc/edit
+
+## Present
+
+- Myles Borins (@MylesBorins)
+- Wesley Wigham (@weswigham)
+- Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser)
+- Jeremiah Senkpiel (@Fishrock123)
+- Rob Palmer (@robpalme)
+- Saleh Abdel Motaal (@SMotaal)
+- Gus Caplan (@devsnek)
+- Michael Zasso (@targos)
+- Guy Bedford (@guybedford)
+- Jan Krems (@jkrems)
+- Jordan Harband (@ljharb)
+- Hassan Sani (@inidaname)
+- John-David (@jdalton)
+- Geoffrey Booth (@GeoffreyBooth)
+
+## Agenda
+
+Extracted from **modules-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+### Approve PR (5 Minutes)
+
+* Governance: "Pull Requests" post Phase 2 upstream [#311](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/pull/311)
+  - CONCLUSION: NO OBJECTIONS
+
+### Discussion (50 minutes)
+
+* Review Phase 3 [#316](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/316)
+  - 10 minute timebox
+  - MB: Want to identify objections to break out into separate issues.
+  - Loader solution: no objections. Guy, Saleh, Gus volunteer as co-champions.  Maybe form a group?
+  - Dual-mode packages: to be (two approaches) or not to be.  Geoffrey, Jordan as co-champions.
+  - createRequire:
+    - MB: discovered `makeRequireFunction(".")`.  Maybe make dot the default.
+    - JH: Maybe this is not necessary if we get dual-mode packages
+    - SM: Needs to be detectable in non-Node, e.g. prefer global over `import.meta`
+    - JS: If no dual-mode, this needs to be very simple. Current is not good enough.
+    - Champion: Myles
+- import map equivalent
+  - JH: This is important.  Want to have it for both CJS and ESM. Depends on outcome of dual-mode packages.
+  - WW: No reason for this to be format-specific. Agree with Jordan.
+  - GB: This is itself a dual-mode proposal, due to lack of full backporting.
+  - WW: Dual-mode to allow packages to work in old Node is not "dual mode" that we are talking about here.
+  - Champion: Jan Krems
+  - Participants: Saleh
+- Auto-detection of entrypoints
+  - Champion: Geoffrey (if we even do this)
+  - Participants: Saleh
+
+* To Dual Mode or Not to Dual Mode
+  - 30 minute timebox
+  - Refs:
+    - Exports main [#41](https://github.com/nodejs/ecmascript-modules/pull/41)
+    - Proposal for dual ESM/CommonJS packages [#273](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/273)
+    - Proposal for single-mode packages with optional fallbacks for older versions of node [#299](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/299)
+
+- Jordan: Gist is that starting to use ESM as soon as it's unflagged is that it's a breaking change for all consumers and that they'll have to swap from `require` to `import`. That's pretty unnecessary and it can cause a fork in the ecosystem.
+    - At one time there was a hope that you could just `require` an ESM, there was an idea about extension resolution (cjs/mjs), there were lots of things here.
+    - Two singletons in graph.
+    - First thing we need to decide on is whether switching to ESM is the "right thing" or if we do want to improve the incremental migration story.
+- Geoffrey: Talking about bare specifiers (when require/import "package")
+    - One question to allow bare specifier to be mapped to another 
+
+* Proposal: Support loading package by own "name" [#306](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/306)
+  - 5 minute timebox
+* Moving forward with Dynamic Modules? [#252](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/252)
+  - 5 minute timebox