Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2016-01-07 #27

Activity

1. rvagg commented on Jan 7, 2016

   

   rvagg

   on Jan 7, 2016

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   Unfortunately I'm unlikely to make this one, I really shouldn't be on conference calls while on holiday with the family! Uberconference will record automatically without intervention.

   This meeting seems to be mainly needed to help tick off items that are blocking the Inclusivity group from getting ratified, although looking the current state of #24 I'm not sure if that'll be possible this week.

   My input on the agenda items fwiw:

   • invite prior contributors to the nodejs org #3802: I'm +0 on this, while I recognise the debt we have to all of these people, I'd prefer that we prioritise the project being owned and run according to current merit rather than historical merit or some other measure. Just because you added some fundamental feature back in 2010 doesn't necessarily mean you automatically get a say in what we do with that feature today. When I move on one day, why should the new cohort of collaborators care what I say? I know that we're just talking about foundation membership here and I recognise the potential value in adding a larger pool of members, but membership is not without its benefits—voting rights on community board seat for instance—should contributors who have moved on from this community get a free say in who represents the current community on the board? +0 because this not that big a deal to me, more of a sentiment.
   • Add inclusivity@ for inclusivity WG Issues regarding the behavior of certain members #13: +1, this is a blocker because it's referred to in their docs, although this only gives inclusivity@iojs.org, if they want @nodejs.org we'll have to get the LF to redirect.
   • email: add lts email alias /dev/null #12: +0, I defer to @jasnell if he thinks this is useful
   • doc: add Working Groups document doc: add Working Groups document #24: +1, this looks fine to me but there do appear to be outstanding items in the discussion that have not been resolved and probably should be before moving forward. A bit of meeting bikeshedding required I guess.
2. rvagg commented on Jan 7, 2016

   

   rvagg

   on Jan 7, 2016

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   Aside: I pulled out https://github.com/rvagg/node-meeting-agenda to a separate repo, it's in npm and can be used to make the agenda list from issue labels.

   I also pulled out https://github.com/rvagg/make-node-meeting and made it more generic to make the text of these meeting announcements. I have configs for ctc and tsc, hopefully there are other WGs that may appreciate the leg-up on this tedious task.
3. bnoordhuis commented on Jan 7, 2016

   

   bnoordhuis

   on Jan 7, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   I think I may be double-booked tonight. My input in case I can't join:

   • invite prior contributors to the nodejs org node#3802 - no opinion
   • Add inclusivity@ for inclusivity WG email#13 - seems fine to me
   • email: add lts email alias email#12 - ditto
   • doc: add Working Groups document #24 - no opinion, not sure what the controversy is
4. jasnell commented on Jan 7, 2016

   

   jasnell

   on Jan 7, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   @rvagg +1 on generalizing those tools btw... if need be I can chair today's call. Should be a light agenda.
5. jasnell commented on Jan 7, 2016

   

   jasnell

   on Jan 7, 2016

   Member

   More actions

   I just withdrew nodejs/email#12 ... it's just a convenience, not critical
6. rvagg commented on Jan 14, 2016

   

   rvagg

   on Jan 14, 2016

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   It's not clear to me whether this meeting officially happened, the minutes doc hasn't got anything substantive in it and I'm going to just repurpose it for the next meeting. Can someone who attended please let me know whether this happened and whether we need to make record of the proceedings?
7. rvagg commented on Jan 14, 2016

   

   rvagg

   on Jan 14, 2016

   MemberAuthor

   More actions

   Comment here: nodejs/node#3802 (comment) suggests that there was a meeting and decisions were made. No minutes but I'll grab the recording and publish it (perhaps I'll even listen to it and jot some things down!).
8. williamkapke commented on Jul 14, 2016

   

   williamkapke

   on Jul 14, 2016

   Contributor

   More actions

   Minutes added in #111
9. williamkapke

   closed this as completedon Jul 14, 2016