Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2016-03-23 #5866

Closed
rvagg opened this issue Mar 23, 2016 · 5 comments
Closed

Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2016-03-23 #5866

rvagg opened this issue Mar 23, 2016 · 5 comments

Comments

@rvagg
Copy link
Member

rvagg commented Mar 23, 2016

Time

UTC Wed 23-Mar-2016 20:00:

  • San Francisco: Wed 23-Mar-2016 13:00
  • New York: Wed 23-Mar-2016 16:00
  • Amsterdam: Wed 23-Mar-2016 21:00
  • Moscow: Wed 23-Mar-2016 23:00
  • Sydney: Thu 24-Mar-2016 07:00
  • Tokyo: Thu 24-Mar-2016 05:00

Or in your local time:

Links

Agenda

Extracted from ctc-agenda labelled issues and pull requests from the nodejs org prior to the meeting.

nodejs/node

  • governance: add new collaborators #XI #5779
  • buffer: backport new buffer constructor APIs #5763
  • module: prioritize current directory for local lookup #5689
  • Vote on ES module detection #5648
  • Add @mhdawson back to the CTC #5633
  • process: add 'warning' event #4782
  • Seek legal advice on LICENSE and copyright blocks in code #3979

nodejs/TSC

  • Flatten project, scope TSC, big changes to structure. #59

Invited

Notes

The agenda comes from issues labelled with ctc-agenda across all of the repositories in the nodejs org. Please label any additional issues that should be on the agenda before the meeting starts.

Joining the meeting

Uberconference; participants should have the link & numbers, contact me if you don't.

Public participation

We will attempt to stream our Uberconference call straight to YouTube so anyone can listen to it live. If it works, then it should start playing at https://www.youtube.com/nodejs+foundation/live when we turn it on. There's usually a short cat-herding time at the start of the meeting and then occasionally we have some quick private business to attend to before we can start recording & streaming. So be patient and it should show up.

Many of us will be on IRC in #node-dev on Freenode if you'd like to interact, we have a Q/A session scheduled at the end of the meeting if you'd like us to discuss anything in particular. @nodejs/collaborators in particular if there's anything you need from the CTC that's not worth putting on as a separate agenda item, this is a good place for it.

@rvagg
Copy link
Member Author

rvagg commented Mar 23, 2016

Please make careful note of the time if you've been involved in a DST shift, this time slot is pinned to UTC.

Agenda is tight, let's try and steam through it, come prepared with actionable items if you are responsible for labeling an issue for the agenda.

We also told @bradleymeck that we'd come back to the modules discussion this week, everyone was warned to prep on that one to try and make some preliminary decisions to move things forward.

@bnoordhuis
Copy link
Member

I'm probably not going to attend but I'm +1 on adding back @mhdawson. Apropos #5648, I think I have a slight preference for a file extension-based approach, like .jsm.

@indutny
Copy link
Member

indutny commented Mar 23, 2016

👍 for @mhdawson in case I won't be able to get there.

@shigeki
Copy link
Contributor

shigeki commented Mar 23, 2016

I'm afraid I can't make it this week. I'm also +1 for @mhdawson back. For #5648 after reading the issue ad the summary of wiki page, i think it is a very hard vote but I'm have +1 to having a new file extension for its explicitness and simplicity to start with a new feature.

@Trott
Copy link
Member

Trott commented Mar 23, 2016

Does GOVERNANCE.md need to be updated regarding the target size of the CTC? It says that we aim for 6 to 12. Adding Michael would put us up at 18 members.

Perhaps it's a sign of community growth and the expanding scope of the project, but I find it hard to imagine the CTC being only 6 people at this point. Maybe the target size should be shifted to "9 to 15" or something like that?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants