-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 134
Commit
This commit does not belong to any branch on this repository, and may belong to a fork outside of the repository.
doc: add minutes for meeting 20 Nov 2024 (#1655)
* doc: add minutes for meeting 20 Nov 2024 Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com> * Update meetings/2024-11-20.md Co-authored-by: Marco Ippolito <marcoippolito54@gmail.com> --------- Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <midawson@redhat.com> Co-authored-by: Marco Ippolito <marcoippolito54@gmail.com>
- Loading branch information
1 parent
9c99bc2
commit 3de15b8
Showing
1 changed file
with
153 additions
and
0 deletions.
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 +1,153 @@ | ||
| # Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2024-11-20 | ||
|
|
||
| ## Links | ||
|
|
||
| * **Recording**: <https://youtube.com/live/ev_8e8UVfNY> | ||
| * **Minutes Google Doc**: <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1652> | ||
|
|
||
| ## Present | ||
|
|
||
| * Antoine du Hamel @aduh95 (voting member) | ||
| * Yagiz Nizipli @anonrig (voting member) | ||
|
|
||
| * Ruben Bridgewater @BridgeAR (voting member) | ||
| * Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (voting member) | ||
| * Marco Ippolito @marco-ippolito (voting member) | ||
| * Matteo Collina @mcollina (voting member) | ||
| * Michael Dawson @mhdawson (voting member) | ||
| * Moshe Atlow @MoLow (voting member) | ||
| * Richard Lau @richardlau (voting member) | ||
| * Ruy Adorno @ruyadorno (voting member) | ||
| * Paolo Insogna @ShogunPanda (voting member) | ||
|
|
||
| ## Agenda | ||
|
|
||
| ### Announcements | ||
|
|
||
| * Marco: 20.18.1 just released, kudos to Antoine for helping to automate release process. | ||
| * Matteo: GitHub program for security open source, we can get some $ if some of us go | ||
| through some training. Good way to skill up on security issues. 5-10 hour commitment | ||
| per week. Matteo will open an issue. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Reminders | ||
|
|
||
| * Remember to nominate people for the [contributor spotlight](https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/reconizing-contributors.md#bi-monthly-contributor-spotlight) | ||
|
|
||
| ### CPC and Board Meeting Updates | ||
|
|
||
| *Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting. | ||
|
|
||
| * Matteo, from the Board the biggest topic is planning for next year. The biggest expense will be | ||
| the conference. CFP opening soon, need to discuss if we are going to do a collab summit | ||
| there. | ||
| * Express project is becoming an impact project as project has improved governance and level | ||
| of activity. | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/node | ||
|
|
||
| * test: improve zlib tests [#55716](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55716) | ||
| * Yagiz: the pull request uses node tests where it was not used before. Reasoning | ||
| for change -> we currently have two test runners, current test runner depends on things | ||
| that other runtimes don’t have. Hard to do without node test. Since there are not | ||
| requirements for naming and descriptions which has led to duplicate tests. | ||
| * Michael, one question from last time. Using node:test to help let other runtimes run | ||
| tests seems to be going into the opposite direction. | ||
| * Joyee: took a brief look. Previously they were not wrapped in an async direction, don’t | ||
| see how it's different/improved from my look at the tests that have been updated so far. | ||
| * In terms of missing descriptions, we could just improve comments. Just because node-test | ||
| requires a description does not mean that description will really be better as people | ||
| could add a 1 letter description. | ||
| * Yagiz, there are already tests that use node-test. See this as an opportunity to clarify | ||
| what the future direction should be. | ||
| * Joyee, have found it harder to find test failure with node-test. As far of these tests they | ||
| don’t really look like porting them to node-test improves. | ||
| * Yagiz, no requirement, but while working on these tests for workers, found it hard to work | ||
| with them, and thought this will help the community tests. We could close this PR, but we | ||
| need common discussion about the direction. | ||
| * Michael, possibly add doc to collaborator doc to capture the direction, form consensus there. | ||
| * Ruy, last code and learn had people moving to node-test. But seems like there was not | ||
| necessarily consensus on that. | ||
| * Yagiz, consensus on using external test runner? | ||
| * Matteo, don’t think we do. In particular we should not test things it depends | ||
| on with itself (for example process, etc.). For other things possibly ok | ||
| * Matteo, promise with resolvers (currently available after 22.x), prefer if we hold back | ||
| on that due to compatibility with older versions. | ||
| * Yagiz, kind of agree with not using node test runner to test the dependencies. Can work | ||
| around promise with resolvers by creating work around. | ||
| * Joyee, have you checked what kind of stack trace you see with promise with resolves | ||
| versus what we get with the common.must_not_call. If improves stack trace them more | ||
| positive, if it makes the stack trace less useful then negative. | ||
| * Yagiz open PR to contributor guidelines to document things like “don’t use node test runner | ||
| for deps” and use it to build/document consensus. | ||
|
|
||
| * assert: add partialDeepStrictEqual [#54630](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/54630) | ||
| * added a while back as there was not consensus on the name | ||
| * Ruben, name is agreed now but still work before it can land. | ||
| * Marco, it does not work 100% yet, still some technical issues, proposal is to land | ||
| as experimental and then iterate. | ||
| * No longer blocker, can be removed from the agenda. | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/nodejs.org | ||
|
|
||
| * Add Vetted Courses [#7201](https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/issues/7201) | ||
| * Matteo, will PR in and we will discuss and deal with any blockers there. | ||
|
|
||
| * feat: add streams guide [#7123](https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/pull/7123) | ||
| * Matteo planning to look in next week or so. Leave on the agenda for now. | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/TSC | ||
|
|
||
| * Clarify the Charter so that contractors are explicity counted as affialiated [#1650](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/pull/1650) | ||
| * On the agenda as FYI to the TSC. | ||
| * No objections in the issue now, Matteo will take to the CPC for approval. | ||
|
|
||
| * Let's talk about the CI situation [#1614](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1614) | ||
| * Nothing to chat about this week. | ||
|
|
||
| * Open OpenCollective and Github Sponsors for Node.js [#1553](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1553) | ||
| * On agenda to get TSC members thinking about, discuss more based on situation next week. | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/package-examples | ||
|
|
||
| * Starting a team for the package examples initiative [#3](https://github.com/nodejs/package-examples/issues/3) | ||
| * Good to mention in the TSC meeting, to better document EJS/CJS usage and provide | ||
| better more up to date examples, similar to node-addon-examples. | ||
| * Idea is to delegate to the package maintenance team and others who are interested | ||
| Challenge is that we’ve had people join teams but then not be active. | ||
| * Michael, if somebody becomes active enough they could join existing teams? As | ||
| long as those teams agree, makes sense to me. | ||
| * No objections | ||
|
|
||
| ### nodejs/bluesky | ||
|
|
||
| * Who should have access for this repository? [#2](https://github.com/nodejs/bluesky/issues/2) | ||
| * <https://github.com/nodejs/bluesky/issues/2> | ||
| * Joyee, give access to some existing teams | ||
| * Michael, model that would work the best is to define the content that is ok to post, and then | ||
| Trust people to post the right thing. | ||
| * Matteo, issue is that we also need people who will respond, best option is likely to delegate | ||
| to the foundation to post/respond | ||
| * Matteo, some specific things (like announce of new collaborator) less review for others | ||
| we’d need a more detailed review. | ||
| * Joyee, agree that similar to fast track process we can get some stuff out more quickly | ||
| * In terms of replies we can also have some automation, also not everything would need to go | ||
| through the repo, we can have additional access to foundation staff so they can post/reply | ||
| directly as well. | ||
| * Other issue about how many accounts. Seems like we can start with one, if there is energy | ||
| about spinning off more. Keep in mind that we may have more in the future. | ||
| * Michael, agree that starting with one makes sense, challenge before was belief that news | ||
| about the project was not appropriate for the main Node.js account. | ||
| * Matteo, believe current bluesky audience will be interested in what is going on in the project. | ||
| * Joyee, social should be social, and should be more interactive. We can start with one and | ||
| The we can poll for whether people want more or less content. | ||
| * Michael, having the main account repost peoples posts would be an important part of the | ||
| of our approach. | ||
| * Joyee the sdk is quite flexible. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Strategic Initiatives | ||
|
|
||
| ## Upcoming Meetings | ||
|
|
||
| * **Node.js Project Calendar**: <https://nodejs.org/calendar> | ||
|
|
||
| Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar. |