doc: missing meeting notes

doc/meetings/2019-06-19.md

@@ -0,0 +1,49 @@
+# Node.js Foundation Modules Team Meeting 2019-05-22
+
+* **Recording**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I45_tXRxoLQ
+* **GitHub Issue**:  https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/342
+* **Minutes Google Doc**: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xFezS-2fWtASYg_QJn-koNfrHBD0-LRG-EQXKntQuVY/edit
+
+## Present
+
+- Wesley Wigham (@weswigham)
+- Jordan Harband (@ljharb)
+- Saleh Abdel Motaal (@SMotaal)
+- Myles Borins (@MylesBorins)
+- Guy Bedford (@guybedford)
+
+## Agenda
+
+Extracted from **modules-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+### nodejs/modules
+
+* Proposal: --default-type [#335](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/335)
+
+Geoff explains the proposal
+
+Jordan: Sounds similar to the --type flag we decided against previously. Why now are we going to reevaluate that decision?
+
+Geoffrey: A couple of users have been asking for this
+
+Myles: As a clarifying question, all node_modules would get this type applied right?
+
+Geoffrey: That is the naive implementation, yes.
+
+Myles: Then I would object to that, as it seems likely to be ecosystem breaking. The flag seems inherently broken in that it would require all modules in the tree to already assume that default type. If we want to do this we have to ensure all modules have type commonjs in their tree otherwise we are setting people up to break stuff.
+
+Guy: We’re trying to look at approaches for removing “type”: “module” in future too. Do we want this?
+Jordan: I see no problem with this.
+
+Myles: I don’t see this as a huge burden.
+
+Guy: If we don’t see this as a problem, then we don’t need to worry about it. We could also possibly consider adding some guidance here to encourage users to set “type”.
+
+
+Myles: We could be more explicit and even encourage package managers to set this on init. I think we can bring this offline and someone can create a PR for this in the docs, and if someone wanted a timeline for the switch we could note the doc deprecation and warning deprecation. As well as warnings that only get included if you add a special flag.
+
+Geoffrey: It is broader than just one paragraph, it is also about how you define a module or esm module. That we can maybe discuss in an issue or something as I’m sure people will have opinions.
+
+* Flags functionality options [#300](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/300)
+
+* Package Exports [#341](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/341)

doc/meetings/2019-07-03.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Node.js Foundation Modules Team Meeting 2019-07-03
+
+## Links
+
+* **Recording**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2vSohstr-5M
+* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/346
+* **Minutes Google Doc**: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11KCURwlDyTGebqAkOaImjISrauuwXS1DXpPXKpmp3GM/edit
+
+## Present
+
+* Modules team: @nodejs/modules
+* Jan Krems (@jkrems)
+* Myles Borins (@Mylesborins)
+* Wesley Wigham (@weswigham)
+* Sendil Kumar (@sendil
+kumarn)
+* Rob Palmer (@robpalme)
+* Saleh Abdel Motaal (@smotaal)
+* Geoffrey Booth (@GeoffreyBooth)
+* John-David Dalton (@jdalton)
+* Jordan Harband (@ljharb)
+
+
+## Agenda
+
+## Announcements
+
+*Extracted from **modules-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+### nodejs/modules
+
+* Package Exports [#341](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/341)
+
+PR is open https://github.com/nodejs/ecmascript-modules/pull/72
+
+
+* All Modules go into a namespace [nodejs#21551](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/21551)
+  - Refs: https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/28466