Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2016-11-16

[Trott]

Time

UTC Wed 16-Nov-2016 20:00:

Timezone	Date/Time
US / Pacific	Wed 16-Nov-2016 12:00
US / Mountain	Wed 16-Nov-2016 13:00
US / Central	Wed 16-Nov-2016 14:00
US / Eastern	Wed 16-Nov-2016 15:00
Amsterdam	Wed 16-Nov-2016 21:00
Moscow	Wed 16-Nov-2016 23:00
Chennai	Thu 17-Nov-2016 01:30
Tokyo	Thu 17-Nov-2016 05:00
Sydney	Thu 17-Nov-2016 07:00

Or in your local time:

• http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Node.js+Foundation+Core%20Technical%20Committee%20(CTC)+Meeting+2016-11-16&iso=20161116T20
• or http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8pm+UTC%2C+Nov+16%2C+2016+in+local+time

Links

• Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PAeYMVWj7wdzQv1Wc74kQbUyNIDGwI5bmaVS_rL0uO0
• Previous Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qMhoZvX8XWofbAm76BlIkvTztyuQOMWJk4za3g37RtA

Agenda

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

nodejs/CTC

• A new New CTC Meeting Schedule Proposal #29

• Documentation WG Status#32

nodejs/node

• Revert "buffer: runtime deprecation of calling Buffer without new" #9529

• tls: fix leak of WriteWrap+TLSWrap combination#9626

• src: don't call into VM from AsyncWrap destructor#9467

Invited

• Anna Henningsen @addaleax (CTC)
• Bradley Meck @bmeck (observer/GoDaddy/TC39)
• Ben Noordhuis @bnoordhuis (CTC)
• Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (CTC)
• Chris Dickinson @chrisdickinson (CTC)
• Colin Ihrig @cjihrig (CTC)
• Evan Lucas @evanlucas (CTC)
• Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 (CTC)
• Tracy Hinds @hackygolucky (observer/Node.js Foundation)
• Fedor Indutny @indutny (CTC)
• James M Snell @jasnell (CTC)
• Josh Gavant @joshgav (observer/Microsoft)
• Michael Dawson @mhdawson (CTC)
• Julien Gilli @misterdjules (CTC)
• Mikeal Rogers @mikeal (observer/Node.js Foundation)
• Brian White @mscdex (CTC)
• Ali Ijaz Sheikh @ofrobots (CTC)
• Jenn Turner @renrutnnej (observer/Node.js Foundation)
• Rod Vagg @rvagg (CTC)
• Seth Thompson @s3ththompson (observer/Google)
• Shigeki Ohtsu @shigeki (CTC)
• Steven R Loomis @srl295 (observer/IBM/ICU)
• Michaël Zasso @targos (observer)
• Myles Borins @thealphanerd (CTC)
• Sakthipriyan Vairamani @thefourtheye (CTC)
• Trevor Norris @trevnorris (CTC)
• Rich Trott @Trott (CTC)

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 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.

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.

[Trott]

Anyone have anything to add to the agenda? It's just one item right now and it's about the meeting schedule. Seems like something we can resolve in the issue tracker.

Other notes:

• Please update the list of upcoming meetings at the bottom of the doc if you have anything.
• Stand-up is ready to go.
• Note date and time carefully! This meeting will occur in approximately 39 hours (if I'm doing the arithmetic correctly, which is far from a sure thing).

[Trott]

So far, no agenda items other than the proposed change to the CTC meeting schedule rotation. Since it pains me to think that we'll have a meeting only to talk about scheduling other meetings, I'd opt for canceling this if:

• no one else has any pressing agenda items to add at this time
• no one has any private business that needs to be addressed this week

/cc @nodejs/collaborators (in case someone would add something but they're not seeing this because it's in the CTC repo and not the node repo)

[Trott]

This was added to the agenda by @thealphanerd:

• tls: fix leak of WriteWrap+TLSWrap combination

His specific comment:

I've added the ctc-agenda tag to discuss how quickly we should be cutting v4 and v6 if this lands. If there is urgency we don't exactly have time to wait until the next LTS meeting

That is time-sensitive, so the meeting is on, it would seem.

[rvagg]

I'm not sure that's something that we really need to handle in a meeting. It can probably be negotiated between @indutny and LTS to come to an understanding of urgency and take appropriate action. I'll go and comment in that issue but IMO we should still cancel this meeting unless something else comes up.

[MylesBorins]

sgtm

On Tue, Nov 15, 2016, 9:07 PM Rod Vagg notifications@github.com wrote:

I'm not sure that's something that we really need to handle in a meeting.
It can probably be negotiated between @indutny
https://github.com/indutny and LTS to come to an understanding of
urgency and take appropriate action. I'll go and comment in that issue but
IMO we should still cancel this meeting unless something else comes up.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#33 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecV4yJMBMmzmSC69C4UXGNVYWqhEieks5q-mVfgaJpZM4KyLKr
.

[indutny]

LGTM to me too.

[Trott]

OK, so we don't need a meeting for any of those issues. The only other potentially time-sensitive issue is nodejs/node#9529.

It is not tagged ctc-agenda but note @ChALkeR's comment: nodejs/node#9529 (comment).

@ChALkeR: Is it enough on that one to say, "Hey, @nodejs/ctc, look at nodejs/node#9529 because if you don't have anything to add, it's going to land Real Soon Now." Or is it something that we may need to discuss on the call (perhaps in the private section, depending on whether there are specific concerns and what they are)?

[Trott]

Clarification on my above comment: I think the Buffer issue is absolutely important enough to have a meeting for even if it's the only thing we have to talk about. I don't mean to be pressuring anyone to let us skip the meeting. I just don't want to have everyone show up to a meeting if it's not needed. But, yes, the Buffer thing is important to resolve and it's best if we come to a resolution sooner rather than later.

[ChALkeR]

@Trott Hi! I'm looking at the Buffer issue now, I had a very packed schedule this (and last) week.

I am not sure if we should revert the «Buffer without new) deprecation (aka land #9529) short-term, but I have a strong opinion that we should deprecate Buffer(arg) soon (preferrably in 8.0) both with and without new, for security reasons.

Given that, I'm not sure if it makes sense to deprecate-undeprecate-deprecate Buffer without new too much.

I certainly want to have at least another discussion on this matter before we choose any path of moving forward. I still have one hour to get my arguments ready before the meeting =).

[Trott]

@ChALkeR The meeting this week is at the later time, so you have about 5 hours to go right now! :-D

[thefourtheye]

I am running fever. I might not join today.

[ChALkeR]

@Trott Ah, is it? Argh, I got my schedule wrong =). I will get that ready then.

I labeled nodejs/node#9529 issue ctc-agenda, adding it to today list.

Citing my comment there:

f we (hopefully) decide to land full Buffer(arg) deprecation in 8.0 and do that, would we think that landing this PR was a good step, looking back from where we would be?

If yes — I have no objections. If no — we should have a resolution on the large issue (Buffer(arg)) deprecations first.

I hope that specific question would be quick enough to discuss.

[AndreasMadsen]

Maybe consider discussing nodejs/node#9467, there are diffrent opinions about if nodejs/node#9467 is the correct solution and whether it is solving more issues than it creates. I don't see us converging on a solution.