doc: add meeting 10 Jan 2024

meetings/2024-01-10.md

@@ -0,0 +1,125 @@
+# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2024-01-10
+
+## Links
+
+* **Recording**:  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8dtXhOPDO0>
+* **GitHub Issue**: <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1489>
+
+## Present
+
+* Yagiz Nizipli @anonrig (voting member)
+* Geoffrey Booth @GeoffreyBooth (voting member)
+* Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (voting member)
+* Chengzhong Wu @legendecas (voting member)
+* Matteo Collina @mcollina (voting member)
+* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (voting member)
+* Moshe Atlow @MoLow (voting member)
+* Richard Lau @richardlau (voting member)
+* Robert Nagy @ronag (voting member)
+* Ruy Adorno @ruyadorno (voting member)
+
+## Agenda
+
+### Announcements
+
+* Richard, Ulises did a release for Node.js 20
+
+### CPC and Board Meeting Updates
+
+*Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+* Travel fund is most relevant discussion. Board has asked that the rules for the fund be
+  revamped. Things are progressing fast as we want to have them in place.
+* Still waiting on news on the room for collaborator summit in London
+  * Track for Node.js is still in play, conference has room for the track
+
+### nodejs/node
+
+* Revisiting `globalThis` as an `EventTarget` [#51372](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/51372)
+  * No clear conclusion in the discussion yet. On agenda because the TSC will need to make a
+    Decision at some point. Not yet at that point but will likely end up in a vote.  It is SemVer
+    major PR so will need to make decision by Feb ish.
+
+* Inconsistent behavior of nextTick and queueMicrotask [#51156](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/51156)
+  * Robert - Have not had too much time to pursue, but have opened a few PRs which are
+    progressing
+  * Second one is to add as experimental, Matteo what did you see with breakage
+    * Matteo, from what I saw breakage was extensive
+    * Robert the only way forward is to add another new API, deprecate next tick to discourage
+      future use.
+  * Can remove from agenda at this point.
+
+* enable corepack by default [#50963](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/50963)
+  * Yagiz, have not seen to many changes needed for a while so seems stable, likely that we
+    should make a decision on making it stable or if that is not going to enable by default then
+    we should remove. If we don’t enable by default then we don’t have a path to removing npm.
+  * Matteo, shipping a package manager by default is one of the key elements of what made
+    Node.js successful. Don’t see a good technical reason to migrate them out. Advantage of
+    shipping npm, is on stability of the build. One issue is loss of repeatable builds
+  * Michael, main point is if goal of people in making stable is a step towards removing npm,
+    then that is the discussion we should have versus making it stable and kicking that down
+    the road.
+  * Yagiz, recommend that we either remove npm or add other package managers.
+  * Robert, whatever we do, removing npm is not an option, then leads do we discuss adding
+    package manager managers
+  * Yagiz why can we not remove npm
+  * Geoffrey, would be large breaking change
+  * Robert, not worth it for political issue
+  * Yagiz, should we not reduce the bundle size
+  * Richard, unlikely to get a consensus. We will likely need a vote.
+  * Matteo, propose we remove npm from corepack, then enable corepack by default. If we
+    Have a vote lets vote on removing npm, versus vote on corepack.
+  * Geoffrey, if the goal is to offer bundle size, don’t we offer additional binaries.
+  * Yagiz, if vote is removal of npm it should include alternative of adding more package
+    managers
+  * Robert, does it even makes sense to have corepack if we are not going to remove npm
+  * Matteo, if you enable corepack, then typing pnpm it just works its great. But when using
+    corepack you don’t get a clear picture of the match between Node.js and package manager
+    installed.
+  * Richard, the issue around not knowing what you get. Original version only installed a specific
+    version. The project requested that it pull in latest.
+  * Vote
+    * We agree our goal is to remove npm from Node.js:   Yes/No
+    * If we are not going to remove npm, should corepack be included in Node.js Yes/No
+    * Should we enable corepack by default today: Yes/No
+  * Geoffrey, we don’t necessarily need to rush into decision. Would be good to get how popular
+    is corepack
+  * Ruy, definitely going to be a large breaking change
+  * Geoffrey, the person who wants to champion removal of npm should write up proposal and
+    then we vote on that.
+  * Ruy, has been mentioned that distributing npm as are of corepack might not be legally ok.
+  * Michael, probably should not make corepack stable until we resolve issue around direction on npm.
+
+* lib: promote process.binding/_tickCallback to runtime deprecation [#50687](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/50687)
+  * Joyee has issue, please jump in there. <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1482>
+
+* The env var `NODE_V8_COVERAGE` intermittently causes the process to hang [#49344](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/49344)
+  * Richard, there is a PR that addresses this on main.
+  * Issue should be fixed.
+
+* lib: rewrite AsyncLocalStorage without async_hooks [#48528](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/48528)
+  * Requires a patch to V8, the V8 teams reluctant to accept the patch
+  * Joyee - ask was whether we could float the patch
+  * Feedback in the PR seems to be that we should wait until V8 accepts in upstream
+  * Chengzhong, V8 team has discussed removing the API it uses, so there would be more we’d
+    have to float.
+  * Michael, seems very risk to float a large patch especially if underlying APIs it needs are
+    Removed
+  * Geoffrey, what is the alternative?
+  * Joyee, people are working on AsyncContext
+  * Geoffrey, but when?
+* Chengzhong, hoping to make progress in 2024
+* Geoffrey, if it seems promising then waiting makes sense.
+
+### nodejs/admin
+
+* Events / Collaborator Summits for 2024 [#814](https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/814)
+  * No update yet.
+
+## 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.