Node.js Technical Steering Committee, 7 Apr 2016

Previous Meeting Next Meeting

⏯

youtube image

►

From YouTube: 2016-04-07 Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting

Description

https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/87

A

Oh, this is the noches tsc meeting for April this seventh 2016 with us. We have myself Jim icing, feel Michael Dawson, joska, bunt, Brian, Hughes, James, Snell, Alexis compila, and we have a short agenda today. We're not should we do.

A

Let's do a stand-up since there's not many of us and we haven't really done one recently James. Would you mind to go first for like tsc when I think, specifically, okay.

B

um Specifically intended to be the nodejs board meeting it as an observer lots, pieces mahou had a number of interesting conversations. They're related to you know the project, scope for top-level projects, also a number of mtm related conversations that I think will for me to get into at a later date.

B

This week the running the vm summit and getting comfy going there. That's me, I might I, don't have a look funny. Okay,.

A

C

Yeah, we think, I think, is also attending the vm summit, so I believe it or not more detail. They had about it. I.

A

Am trying to take notes here and like conduct us at the same time, I'm Michael Dawson, give anything to know I.

D

Think just the same thing: the vm summit. That's it.

E

Rob Ryan, so I wasn't that the AV I'm summit but I've been focusing a lot on some inclusivity working group stuff lately just kind of getting some various processes and things in place, just kind of making sure some stuff is place. So we can get started pretty soon on a couple of moderation, policy related issues. So actually one point x. Mi, do you want to talk to you about the IRC moderation policy? That's been talked about and the moderation Rico and that's about it. For me, I.

F

Think I think that leaves me up at the summit been diving into core. Am understanding how the vm the native side of the vm works and started to talk with google a little bit about the debugging and diagnostics api stuff? Actually, I'm probably going to be diving into that more next week.

A

Okay and then for myself, I've been working a little bit on a get a bot for making things smoother across the org, hopefully, I'll be able to schedule meetings and stuff in the future. I also listened to the vm summit um and I'm going to be working on writing up an initial moderation policy Breyer see since we don't have a really official one right now,.

A

So for review of last meeting, we had something on noches users feedback. Does anyone remember what this was.

B

This was um you know that the idea you know it needed any kind of more formalized effort to get this wiki back from the user. Reading and I maga spread more specific target users, but it was really just discussing that. You know how we how we wanted to go about getting an additional input. Yeah.

D

And I think I mean I think the past discussion is, we didn't come to a. We need a next step. I don't think there was even agreement that we needed to do anything, so it was kind of left on for a future to Justin, but there was no no general agreement that we should even be starting to do something.

A

Okay, um now well.

B

I would comment just briefly that says this idea did come up some of the sessions at the lab summit and I believe there was some discussion about the foundation um trying to reach out more to some of these larger users to get more information from them about what they're doing, and why- and I think so- it's entirely possible that some of that will be covered through this foundation. Outreach effort right.

D

Which story which he said it was discussed, we're at.

B

The board meeting no jansport me: okay, okay,.

D

So maybe I'll talk to you about flying about getting some visibility into that, because I'm just interested in what we do do on that front. Alright, thanks.

A

I forget: is there publicized board meeting notes? Is that a thing.

B

It's supposed to be a thing, no sales who came up in the meeting, apparently those haven't been getting published when all the board members thought that they had been so they're doing some process checking right now to make sure everything gets published, as opposed to you. Okay,.

A

Does anyone have anything to comment on the flattened project, scope, TSE, big changes, the structure thing that Michael proposed I think the last time we were going to lay this off for a while? Was that.

G

Was close by Michael and sofa.

A

It's possible I, haven't actually looked.

G

At it, yeah landed in favor of finding.

A

So he says: I roll up. What appeared to be the consensus? A few means back. It is now clear that is not the consensus. There may not be a consensus to this level, so yeah, it's saying we'll be working on also add guidance, causal, suction, I think we should be merging this. Now. Probably this is a Michael Dawson's pull request, 2, I'm giving some amount of guidance as to what could come under the TSE under the current structure, so that we don't have everyone under the sun trying to apply I.

B

D

Remember there.

B

Being any objections to that, would you repeat: yeah.

D

I think you want to wait until the some of the discussions to settle down, which I think maybe they have right.

A

Where are we waiting for a reply from the board from what rod was presenting for this or.

B

I'll talk a little bit about that in a minute and it's a bit, but that's actually relates to the scope of the nerdy important, ok,.

A

So that was review of the last meeting so minutes for today our agenda, we only have one main item and that's define no disc, or this is issue number 84 on the no Jess / tsc Republic. Oh.

A

Does anyone want to take this away? That knows a little bit more than me, James, maybe yeah.

B

Me, let me get a little bit of the the background with this particular issue and go from there. So at the board meeting last week, rod presented kind of you know, vennett to the board what we had discussed prior about the structure that ATM it had in my in terms of relationship for the tsc to the board to the Executive MBA Foundation, and a key part of that discussion was you know? How do we make decisions about what top-level projects come into the foundation?

B

What how do we decide whose responsibility those things are, and also how can we start becoming a bit more strategic about the decisions that are being instead of being made right? And you know there are no other things that are going on in ecosystem that we are here, but we also need to be fairly strategic about.

B

You know for the DM DM issues that have been released, showing an example right, so he presented this to the board and there actually was a fairly significant amount of pushback from the board itself in terms of the specific structure that broad had in mind, um because the board was not comfortable with the idea of putting the decision of what becomes a top-level project completely into the hands of the CSE that it needed to be more of a joint conversation and they had to be able to.

B

You know, weigh in on it too and there's a number of conversation. That was to do this, not exactly clear where that settled out. But the one thing that was very clear is that the board does not have a clear understanding of how the of what the tsc considers note core right. You know and what is the scope of that, and they may in the board, made a very specific request to us to see to provide them. With that clear description of the couple, we consider our scope.

C

So the question on the github issue looks a bit big to me: I think that maybe you want to clearly specify the question. So the question is: what are the responsibilities of the CTC.

D

Yeah I'm with the scope.

C

Because what is core could be seen that what is the core distribution? What is the core platform? I mean that can be inserted in so many different ways right. So if we scoped the question better, we'll have a better answer. Buddy.

B

So it's a bit more context: I I push you freshen back to me back to the board that you know. Wenak project wants to come into the foundation, there's two things that could happen.

B

One thing is that the board could say that's a TFC decision that we lead with the PSD right they decide they want to take that on. The other possible thing is the board says that is separate from the GFE. That is separate from note, for so that's going to become a separate top-level project that would have its own PSD.

B

That reports back to the board director right, the bylaws for the foundation allow both of those options to it to happen, and we have specific examples of things of other little project could come under under our responsibilities at TFC. You know the CIT GM is a hideous, is an example. Libby d could get example, but if we had another large project, that's already established re open source is once it's doing the foundation.

B

How is the board? How does the board decide where that sits and whose responsibility that is? That is, that is the context of this question. Is they eat some something that makes you use and criteria they can use inside note? That is jeopardy.

C

That's the ultimate thing that would find to define what is the tsc responsibility more than an abstract definition of what is not react to the water right, I.

E

Remember there was some discussion while back I believe Rod was saying this, that there is a fairly large view that the tsc should have roughly the same scope as the board in terms of like projects in overseas, but it where it differs is in that the kinds of like execution that they take on. Do we get the feeling from the board that they tend to lean more towards this view, or do we feel like they lean more towards view of there should be like in the long term, lots of tses, I.

B

Don't think the board is taking a position one way or the other right now, I think what they're doing is they wanna? They want to make sure that they have the information to be able to make the decision and take a position later if they need to well.

A

They might not be taking a position, but it sounds like they're at least like if you're, if you're going to lean toward. If there was any underlying belief that we were supposed to have the same scope. There wouldn't really be much discussion about more TCS, so they probably leaning to the fact that there could be right in.

E

The don't really.

A

Have the same well, yeah yeah,.

B

They very much want to leave the door open, be able to decide for themselves. There should be another top-level project or other top-level project under the foundation that are independent, alert for.

E

Do we yeah I kind of get that impression as well? Do we have a feeling if they are wanting us to have a more tightly scope definition or if they're open to wider definitions of scope.

B

That's hard to say this specific gas was: how do we define our scope now, whether they'll look at that and say no, that's too broad or okay. That looks good I, don't know. That's.

D

Almost a different question than like, when you say you know what snowed core you could say, our scoop in terms of is it just note core or not, is a different question from what note core is right, because you could say that well note court to us means this and we want to be autonomous in that respect like if it's within note chord and we don't need to consult the board, but you could say well, no, the TSE should be responsible for more than note note score, but we accept that in the cases where we're dealing in something beyond the core, then the board needs to be involved as well like.

D

So you know, for example, if you're going to bring something in and it's not in its in note for that's it wouldn't it would need to also include the board.

B

Going it it's certainly.

E

B

An easy question and definitely see clarify exactly what is.

A

This is this underlying because, like we're chartered specifically to take care of note core.

B

Yeah, she really speak like expressed right so whose responsibility is expressed. If you want really over to it's, not fitting there or the force responsibility, she was just having them and you know, and it really comes down to well- does express fall under our area of responsibility.

B

Kitsy consider they've done.

A

Right well, I guess, um but I guess like the the easy road now I'm, not we would all like everyone here. So I'm not sure if everyone was like agree with this, but the the easiest road would be well, we've always sort of stood for like a lowest common denominator. Thing.

A

That's still javascript and includes many like dependence or like sort of includes the pen city that we that, like no one else, really maintain so like we kind of have to write it doesn't include like dependencies well, someone else is already maintaining openness felt like we don't need to do that done, not a big deal, but.

C

I still think the question define notice was a bit misleading yeah.

D

A

I I think so too I mean I think this would be a lot easier. um Perhaps if, if it was scope slightly differently, if it was um scope specifically for.

A

Like bit like the node sort of, what's actually core that we ship, but also what's required, to build that if it doesn't already exist and related things that the ecosystem will break without like nan-oh. Oh, it's well, I think the better like Angelo question, Paco.

C

A no question that the board is really glass: what are the responsibilities of the North korte.

B

And on that note so.

B

If we look out in ecosystem Frank, Joint Commission, if these austere not only knows but the help, support because well right, if, if something like I'm gonna stress, ok, if it's NP n wanted to come under the foundation, if you can get started, having issues right than that is inclusiveness and I could have it. You know, even though it's not something that we take responsibility for now.

B

If they read every situation where it was in a crisis, would that be something that the tsc would still responsible for right, because it is a significant part of the ecosystem, even though we don't consider a Cornell right so or NPM was going to come under the foundation.

A

Right, so that's our responsibility, I think. Listen. Part comes back to like this sort of thing that we've we've always you know we try to ship stuff off to the user land. If we, if we can write if we can somehow maybe define ourselves, as you know, a roughly lowest common denominator think so, like express already builds on. You know, htp stuff that we already have, so it doesn't really like belong and core in that respect.

A

But something like talked about this before, like serial port, probably does belonging or because it it is. Zero port is like a lowest common denominator thing. It just isn't in court now.

A

Npm is more or less lowest common denominator for, like the sort of package ecosystem in a way right, so that might belong under us. It's a little less clear than something like serial port right.

B

A

It I think it's like more curvier than express.

D

The initial question is more fundament like I. Don't want to speak for raw, but he's not here and I. Think what I understand his position is. Is you know he does not believe there should be any other TSE or any prod? You know there should be a single tsc that covers all projects which were under the foundation.

D

If, if the board is asking, what are you going to limit yourselves to the question of what note core is is not necessarily the question to answer right? It's because you know we may be able to say this is not poor, but we still believe the TSE should have dope over things, which we would consider outside of core right right. I think the very first question is like do we agree that there should be multiple deities or is it that no there's a single tfp and.

B

Then that maybe.

D

Is the answer you go back to stable? You know the matter. What note chorus in you know unless there's a more specific question, we're not limiting our scope to that.

F

Yeah, I think that is tends to be Microsoft's position also, is that the tsc should be a technical compliment to the board right.

D

In it, it's a like I think from at least my perspective, you know, no core is the focus, but anything else that comes in shouldn't necessarily be up here. It's like they're coming in, because it helps note course right.

A

D

Core is still what should be on and so that this group needs to have a say in input on what's going on in those other projects, it's not like here's. A peer thing that came in will know it's a thing that came in because wrote core. It was important to note, or so it's not a separate concern. It's the same concern well.

A

There's like a couple things here right like if we have like a node foundation, that's like it doesn't matter what level it's about core.

A

What level it's about like node, there's always gonna, be some focus on like core, because well it kind of holds the rest of everything up right so like if there's something up with it, the world of effectively something up with everything else, it's sort of like um I, don't know hierarchy, sort of thing in a sense not to say that anything else isn't important, but problems will traced back to it in a way. I think I.

A

Think there's also something to be said, though. Like I, don't know the the more tsc sort of structures like even the more like working groups. You have the harder it is to tell what's going on the harder it is to organize things. I mean this definitely doesn't late like if there were more projects again like this.

A

This group might end up looking entirely different, like it doesn't need to keep necessarily saying that the same people that we have here and into the future but I imagine it will be harder to manage even for the board if there are multiple groups that have enough scope like this, to the point that we're creating subgroups, if that makes sense, so.

B

There's some of.

A

The other members.

B

Know like like taught more run on another board, so these other projects, like OpenStack, made a certain.

E

B

They have multiple Pablo projects, you know not just like to emigrate or something like double-digit. A little project enough ground agents in RM, they're used to doing the matching those kinds of things it's just whether or not they. You know as the Technical Community. Why min delayed that kind of pattern right and it personally I feel it definitely be too many things we try to go too broad.

B

So we need to make sure that whatever scope we give to the to the board, it is enough to where we think it covers all the calls potential users right, but not so broad that they think support feels of air that we are trying to tie their hands on what positions they think.

F

James, are you saying that the board scope could be larger than the TSE, so I've missed a little bit there and.

B

Yet they could the board to decide to cope is larger than once. I do.

F

Think that I as I, understand Microsoft's position from my management to its that if we feel that that node is scope to a certain degree than that, then the foundation should also be scoped to that, like whatever we feel is. This is the scope for technical stuff should also be the scope for the foundation. I mean we don't want it to become an Apache wear. Eventually, it's still a foundation, but their project has gone.

B

Right- and you know it's for getting expressed expressed out- he wants no Commission. Be this scope to note right. It's been getting a clear picture of what no scope is.

F

E

Here's a clarification, question: okay, wanting more of like a detailed list, kind of thing like what it currently is. Are they looking more for like a definition that is very general, is more of like a decision criteria for how we could determine later on I.

B

I interpreted it as a have a decision criteria now rod man added to reinterpret so I'm, I I, don't think were going to be able to resolve this today. We're going after grated over the next week not to be here and way not this phone yeah.

D

I think what we I think it very least we're going to end up needing additional information from the board, like my question would be in what car you're going to use. This definition yeah like what you know. What is it used for, because that will help us under understand what the actual right answer is: yep.

E

Yep that I agree great.

E

B

E

So I was kind of thinking that you're going back to the what Jim I was saying earlier about you know being fundamental to the project or foundational. You can also. You know what happens if this thing goes away. You know how much is node impacted so, like obviously you know just saying if no core doesn't exist, you know the entire project is basically over I. Think there's. You know the interesting conversations around in p.m. with this recently and you know just highlighting how interconnected things really are.

E

I think that's one of the things that's making this a difficult question answer.

E

B

Definitely definitely have to be right: City I'm, a different movie. The proper excitement.

A

Right and again, like you could say if, if like express, goes away like that's pretty big, is like a lot of people depend on that um and like to the point that we would probably want to do something about it um if possible, because it would hurt enough people, but we probably wouldn't want to take like necessarily permanent, immediate responsibility for it.

A

So like we wouldn't want to be the ones managing if managing it, if possible for a long term, mostly because again it's it's sort of like this user land thing, where it's not really the lowest common denominator that we specifically take as our specific, immediate responsibility right.

E

To do yeah do we have a sense, I mean we, you know we have the mentorship program. Essentially, for that purpose, do we have a sense of how that fits into this question? Is that something that the board wants to tsc to handle like like? Is that something the tsc should handle should be someone else that manages that program Oh.

B

Show me the support is absolutely happy with this idea of the mentorship program. Now they're. The point range that it's not really an incubator. We call it an incubator, but it's not really it's just a mentorship things or some discussion about possibly renaming it, but they're they're absolutely happy with this idea that we would go out and mentor actually menswear these projects that are having some issues in the community in order to help them remain vital and healthy. But at the same time there's other concerns along with that.

B

So it's you know it's not just about mentorship, but there's also concerns over IP ownership. So you know like what Express the Express Jays calm domain name.

E

B

We finally got the agreement to get that transfer, but there's there's things like that. That has to have an owner right and sometimes mentorship is not all that's necessary. Somebody has to take ownership of those assets as well, and it's not always clear if that's the board's foundation to do that. If we are mentoring, a project, but then the question is okay, well, whose responsibility did that become right?

B

So it's kind of a kind of a weird thing where if the board is going to take over ownership of the assets- and you might as well make a top level project under the foundation?

B

Okay, so there's this is there are some tricky questions to kind of go along with the idea of mentorship.

A

Right do we have anything else to discuss the terror, or can we take it back to the issue and or wait for more people to show up next week, since they probably will given the fact that we had to be em some of this weekend? Some people were away at thought, although that seems to be most of the people here. So I don't really know, maybe we're just waiting for right. I said.

B

As I say, you know, we wish, if I could get up and leave it on the agenda for next week.

A

A

Do we have will do quick q a or we would, but I don't actually have questions asked anywhere. I did ask four questions on the live stream, but there have not been any so I think we can skip it and if anyone asks anything, we can always answer that next week.

A

Alright, thanks everyone for your time. Next meeting is next week and that is Oh incorrect date. um Everyone knows what it is. So thanks everyone. Alright, you later come how I ever.

E