nodejs
Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2022-08-31
Time
UTC Wed 31-Aug-2022 15:00 (03:00 PM):
| Timezone | Date/Time |
|---|---|
| US / Pacific | Wed 31-Aug-2022 08:00 (08:00 AM) |
| US / Mountain | Wed 31-Aug-2022 09:00 (09:00 AM) |
| US / Central | Wed 31-Aug-2022 10:00 (10:00 AM) |
| US / Eastern | Wed 31-Aug-2022 11:00 (11:00 AM) |
| EU / Western | Wed 31-Aug-2022 16:00 (04:00 PM) |
| EU / Central | Wed 31-Aug-2022 17:00 (05:00 PM) |
| EU / Eastern | Wed 31-Aug-2022 18:00 (06:00 PM) |
| Moscow | Wed 31-Aug-2022 18:00 (06:00 PM) |
| Chennai | Wed 31-Aug-2022 20:30 (08:30 PM) |
| Hangzhou | Wed 31-Aug-2022 23:00 (11:00 PM) |
| Tokyo | Thu 01-Sep-2022 00:00 (12:00 AM) |
| Sydney | Thu 01-Sep-2022 01:00 (01:00 AM) |
Or in your local time:
- https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Node.js+Foundation+Technical%20Steering%20Committee%20(TSC)+Meeting+2022-08-31&iso=20220831T1500
- or https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=03PM+UTC%2C+Aug+31%2C+2022+in+local+time
Links
- Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/14umh1z3gdUWheJQasnhhzdzuN10Sd-wcvg0Yawf-r6o/edit
Agenda
Extracted from tsc-agenda labelled issues and pull requests from the nodejs org prior to the meeting.
Invited
- Antoine du Hamel @aduh95 (TSC)
- Anatoli Papirovski @apapirovski (TSC)
- Beth Griggs @BethGriggs (TSC)
- Ruben Bridgewater @BridgeAR (TSC)
- Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (TSC)
- Colin Ihrig @cjihrig (TSC)
- Danielle Adams @danielleadams (TSC)
- Franziska Hinkelmann @fhinkel (TSC)
- Geoffrey Booth @GeoffreyBooth (TSC)
- Gireesh Punathil @gireeshpunathil (TSC)
- James Snell @jasnell (TSC)
- Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (TSC)
- Matteo Collina @mcollina (TSC)
- Michael Dawson @mhdawson (TSC)
- Darshan Sen @RaisinTen (TSC)
- Richard Lau @richardlau (TSC)
- Robert Nagy @ronag (TSC)
- Michaël Zasso @targos (TSC)
- Tobias Nießen @tniessen (TSC)
- Rich Trott @Trott (TSC)
Observers/Guests
Notes
The agenda comes from issues labelled with tsc-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
Zoom link: https://zoom.us/j/611357642 Regular password
Public participation
We stream our conference call straight to YouTube so anyone can listen to it live, it should start playing at https://www.youtube.com/c/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.
Invitees
Please use the following emoji reactions in this post to indicate your availability.
- :+1: - Attending
- :-1: - Not attending
- :confused: - Not sure yet
The only thing worth voting on would be https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/44447 (assuming/hoping that one or both would like to remain on the TSC), but maybe that can be moved to the week after?
FWIW, https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/44250 too has been marked with https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/labels/tsc-agenda, so it might make sense to tackle both topics this week because we did TSC meetings in the past with only 2 topics on the agenda - https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1268. However, I'm okay with deferring to the next week if most people want that.
The only thing worth voting on would be nodejs/node#44447 (assuming/hoping that one or both would like to remain on the TSC), but maybe that can be moved to the week after?
Realated: Here's how everyone on TSC is doing in terms of attendance and voting. (Congratulations to @richarlau who is the only TSC member to attend all 11 of the meetings! Ironically, I'm pretty sure he has to miss this week.)
Out of the last 11 meetings, here's how many meetings each of us has attended:
aduh95: 6, apapirovski: 0, BethGriggs: 9, BridgeAR: 5, ChALkeR: 4, cjihrig: 6, danielleadams: 3, fhinkel: 2, gireeshpunathil: 6, jasnell: 1, joyeecheung: 5, mcollina: 6, mhdawson: 6, RaisinTen: 7, richardlau: 11, ronag: 4, targos: 3, tniessen: 5, Trott: 8
And of the last 2 votes, here's how participation breaks down:
aduh95: 2, apapirovski: 1, BethGriggs: 2, BridgeAR: 2, ChALkeR: 0, cjihrig: 2, danielleadams: 1, fhinkel: 0, gireeshpunathil: 2, jasnell: 0, joyeecheung: 1, mcollina: 2, mhdawson: 2, RaisinTen: 2, richardlau: 2, ronag: 0, targos: 2, tniessen: 0, Trott: 2
Realated: Here's how everyone on TSC is doing in terms of attendance and voting.
Goeffrey is not listed because he joined the TSC less than three months ago?
Realated: Here's how everyone on TSC is doing in terms of attendance and voting.
Goeffrey is not listed because he joined the TSC less than three months ago?
Correct. The script skips anyone who is not listed as a TSC member at the start of the 3-month period.
Do we want to consider relaxing the criteria slightly so that we don't just keep overriding the script? It seems like we (including me) think it's too sensitive, so what would be cutoffs that we wouldn't reflexively overrule?
Alternatively we could reduce the frequency of meetings, at least for the time being while our agendas are light.
Alternatively we could reduce the frequency of meetings, at least for the time being while our agendas are light.
It's hard to predict. I personally think that our current approach of having it weekly but cancelling if the agend is light works fairly well.
Sounds like there are no objections to cancelling so I'll go ahead an do that. Would be good if people looked at https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/44250 and chimed in so that we can discuss more fully next meeting.
Cancelling and removing from Calendar but will leave this open until tomorrow since there is some ongoing discussion in the issue.
Alternatively we could reduce the frequency of meetings, at least for the time being while our agendas are light.
Similar to what Michael said, I like the weekly cadence. I'd rather too many meetings scheduled and end up canceling most of them than have something that needs a meeting but end up having to wait two weeks for it because we've reduced meeting frequency.
I'd rather too many meetings scheduled and end up canceling most of them than have something that needs a meeting but end up having to wait two weeks for it because we've reduced meeting frequency.
Just a thought, but would having less meetings encourage us to action things asynchronously (GitHub, or email thread if private/warranted) rather than waiting for the meeting at all?
In a lot of cases we defer/push topics to the following week (sometimes multiple times) until we happen to have the necessary mix of people present to have the discussion on that topic. Perhaps we'd action things quicker if we didn't wait for that to happen?
encourage us to action things asynchronously (GitHub, or email thread if private/warranted) rather than waiting for the meeting at all?
I honestly think we all want that to happen but unfortunately I don't think we've figured out how to do that. If that was the case we'd end up with an empty agenda most all the time :)
Ok, closing since it's pass the time the meeting would have been and I don't see any further discussion.
Similar to what Michael said, I like the weekly cadence. I’d rather too many meetings scheduled and end up canceling most of them than have something that needs a meeting but end up having to wait two weeks for it because we’ve reduced meeting frequency.
Personally I’d rather have meetings that I expect to happen than to have time blocked off that may or may not get used. I don’t do Node as part of my job, so I have to keep blocks on my work calendar for these meetings, and that’s an imposition on my team that they can’t schedule things during those times. It’s also a burden on me to potentially wake up for a 5 am Pacific Time meeting once every three weeks, in that I need to plan around that (going to bed earlier etc.).
At the very least we should decide as early as possible that a meeting should be canceled, rather than waiting until the last minute. But I think we should consider going to every-two-weeks rather than every week, as then meetings will be less likely to need cancelation. And fewer meetings means people would be more likely to attend, which would mean fewer people caught by the script for removal, etc.
At the very least we should decide as early as possible that a meeting should be canceled, rather than waiting until the last minute.
I agree that deciding whether or not the meeting is happening at the end of the previous week (rather than at the start of the week of the meeting) would be a welcome improvement.