Override objection in - display Node.js version at the end of stacktraces [#38332](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/38332)

[mhdawson]

We discussed in the TSC meeting this week that:

• No TSC members have objected to the change in #38332
• There remains an object, poster was asked to expand on objection a few weeks ago
• Those in the meeting felt it was time to see if we have TSC consensus to override.

@nodejs/tsc please comment in this issue if you have any objections or +1 to indicate you are in agreement to override. If we have sufficient +1s by the next TSC meeting and no objections we'll move forward with the override.

[mhdawson]

+1 from me.

[Trott]

I'll abstain. (I'm +0.5 on the change. I will leave the decision to people who have engaged in the issue and/or thought more about this than I have and/or have more fully-formed and strongly-held views.)

[jasnell]

+1

[ronag]

+1

[targos]

+1

[MylesBorins]

abstain, not familiar enough with discussion

[gireeshpunathil]

+1

[BridgeAR]

+1

[aduh95]

FWIW, the Collaborator Guide allows the objection to be dismissed without a need for a TSC override when the objector is not responsive: https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/0d88c141cbebc3efc5e57db8ef0bf6550cfb62b6/doc/guides/collaborator-guide.md#L159-L161

That being said, I'm +1 on a override.

[Trott]

FWIW, the Collaborator Guide allows the objection to be dismissed without a need for a TSC override when the objector is not responsive:

I thought the same thing, but then looked at the issue, and I think it's not clear cut. They responded to some questions. There's only one comment that they've been mentioned in since their last comment, and it ends with "Is there something that would be critical in case we'd add this? Elaborating your -1 further would be great!" That's inviting a response, but doesn't seem to be really requiring one. I think it's best to formally vote because that conversation has likely run its four-month course.

[Trott]

Keeping tally. Feel free to edit this to update it.

• Yes: 11 (mhdawson, aduh95, BridgeAR, jasnell, ronag, targos, gireeshpunathil, mmarchini, joyeecheung, mcollina, apapirovski )
• No: 0
• Abstain: 6 (Trott, MylesBorins, cjihrig, fhinkel , ChALkeR, danbev )

Total TSC member count: 22

Vote has passed.

[mmarchini]

Yes

[mhdawson]

@nodejs/tsc we need 1 more yes or 4 more abstentions. If we can close on this I'll propose we cancel the in person meeting for this week.

[Trott]

@nodejs/tsc we need 1 more yes or 4 more abstentions. If we can close on this I'll propose we cancel the in person meeting for this week.

Small correction: It needs 2 more yes votes (or 4 abstentions, or 10 no votes).

(If two more people abstain, then it needs only 1 vote or 9 no votes.)

[danbev]

I'll abstain.

[apapirovski]

+1 to override but will leave some comments on the PR.

[joyeecheung]

Yes (and should it cause a widespread regression we can always turn if off by default)

[mcollina]

+1 to override with @joyeecheung consideration.

[ChALkeR]

I'll abstain.

[fhinkel]

I'll abstain.

[mhdawson]

As per the update in #1078 (comment), the vote has now passed.