doc: add TSC meeting minutes 2015-07-08

PR-URL: #2184
Reviewed-By: Colin Ihrig <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>

Author: rvagg

doc/tsc-meetings/2015-07-08.md

@@ -0,0 +1,130 @@
+# Node Foundation TSC Meeting 2015-07-08
+
+## Links
+
+* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/64
+* **Original Minutes Google Doc**: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HuRtu5ZP7ZlrIp756EbZYo4I26v2RY-7CY1pr_3y1nY
+
+## Agenda
+
+Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests prior to meeting.
+
+### nodejs/io.js
+
+* Default Unhandled Rejection Detection Behavior [#830](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/830)
+
+### joyent/node
+
+* Adding a "mentor-available" label [#25618](https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/25618)
+
+## Minutes
+
+
+### Present
+
+* Mikeal Rogers
+* Colin Ihrig (TSC)
+* Ben Noordhuis (TSC)
+* James Snell (TSC)
+* Fedor Indutny (TSC)
+* Bert Belder (TSC)
+* Michael Dawson (TSC)
+* Steven R Loomis (TSC)
+* Alexis Campailla (TSC)
+* Jeremiah Senkpiel (TSC)
+* Julien Gilli (TSC)
+* Chris Dickinson (TSC)
+* Shigeki Ohtsu (TSC)
+* Trevor Norris (TSC)
+* Domenic Denicola
+* Brian White (TSC)
+* Rod Vagg (TSC)
+
+### Review of the previous meeting
+
+* Policy for PR blocking? [#2078](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/2078)
+ - Resolution was to deal with it on a case-by-case basis for now.
+
+* Internationalization WG (Steven)
+ - Steven Loomis is going to kick off the working group.
+ - Steven: no further responses on the github issue.
+ - James: just need to get started
+
+* lts: strawman LTS cycle [lts#13](https://github.com/nodejs/LTS/pull/13) / Proposal: Release Process [#1997](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/1997)
+
+
+### Standup:
+
+* Mikeal Rogers: wrote a new confrence call tool for us that uses Twillio
+* Colin Ihrig: Not much, reviewing PRs, triaging issues.
+* Ben Noordhuis: reviewed a lot of PRs, upgraded v8 in `next` and `next+1`.
+* James Snell: Working on the LTS Proposal, triaging issues in joyent/node, investigating stuff for the upcoming openssl fix.
+* Fedor Indutny: fixed node after v8 upgrade. Exposed critical issues.
+* Bert Belder: Not much code, had conversations with Mike Dolan and James Snell about the foundation and organizational issues. Working through a laundry list of libuv PRs blocking the next release.
+* Michael Dawson: Working on getting PowerPC to build on io.js, tested the security fix from last week, joyent/node triage.
+* Steven R Loomis: Worked a bit on the Intl WG, not much else.
+* Alexis Campailla: converged CI, almost done. Dealing with windows installer issues. Expect converged CI to work in a week.
+* Jeremiah Senkpiel: General triaging and reviewing, helped do the release last friday. `_unrefActive` with optimizations with heap timers. At CascadiaJS the next of the week to get people’s feedback.
+* Julien Gilli: Released 0.12.6 last week, working on setting up other people to do joyent/node releases, joyent/node issue triage
+* Chris Dickinson: Working on docs more, have a new tool for docs to make sure the links are correct in a tree of docs, started a collaborator check-in on the io.js issue tracker, hopefully will be weekly.
+Jeremiah: what is that doctool? 
+Chris: “count-docula”, a MDAST-based tool to verify correctness of the docs.
+* Shigeki Ohtsu: Not much on io.js, preparing to update OpenSSL tonight to get the OpenSSL security fix out.
+* Trevor Norris: Investigating the UTF8 decoder security issue and working on the fix. Reviewing PRs and being involved in the W3C Web Assembly working group.
+* Domenic Denicola: Not much on io.js, travelling, stress testing the vm module.
+* Brian White: Triaging issues, working on the javascript http parser more & benchmarking it.
+* Rod Vagg: We should discuss the LTS proposal again since there was lots of work done on that. Working on lots, including the security fix from last friday (writing up a post-mortem for it), getting external people involved to review our security processes.
+
+### Default Unhandled Rejection Detection Behavior [#830](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/830)
+
+* Domenic: let’s say there was a magic way to detect when an error in an err-back style callback was not handled, what would we do? Print to stderr?
+* Bert: We do have a history of printing things to stderr. We should follow browser semantics if we can, in favor of primnting a warning but nothing else.
+* Discussion about the technicalities of handling unhandledRejections
+* Rod: not sure we should do anything since detecting this is somewhat arbitrary.
+* Domenic: there is a proposal for this that chrome implements behind a flag that comes close to how the unhandledRejection hook in node works
+* Discussion about the technicalities of having a better hook for printing a warning after garbage collection of an unhandled rejection.
+* See this thread for background detail of options in v8: https://code.google.com/p/v8/issues/detail?id=3093#c1
+* Action: nothing now, maybe if v8 adds a hook for when rejections get garbage collected.
+* Domenic: looking at v8, it seems to have most of the hooks, so this may be possible soon.
+
+### Adding a "mentor-available" label [#25618](https://github.com/joyent/node/issues/25618)
+
+* Folks are interested in contributing to larger tasks, need mentors to help them understand the process. Should we add a label?
+* Julien: Many people are interested in making “deeper” contributions, but they need a mentor. Let people add a mentor-available tag so they can locate these.
+* … part of the discussion missing here ...
+* Resolution: let’s try it, one such label has already been added.
+
+### Having more people managing releases for Node.js v0.10.x and v0.12.x
+
+* Julien: I will have less time to do releases; it needs to become more of a team effort.
+* Alexis: in the long term this will be a responsibility of the build team.
+* Julien: unsure how responsibilities will be decided. LTS will need to sign off and build will need to produce the release.
+* Jeremiah: the iojs/current releases are already a group effort. It’s just that the “long-term” v0.10/v0.12 releases fall on few individuals now.
+* Julien: it’s a bit too much to handle for one person. Also people are sometimes unavailable or on vacation. Would like to have a group of about four people.
+* Ben: more contributors recently signed up. I think Sam Roberts might be interested.
+* Julien: would like to have a release management team.
+* Chris: iojs has had the release manager propose other release managers. Open an issue for this.
+* Resolved as such.
+
+### lts: LTS Proposal https://github.com/nodejs/LTS#proposed-lts)/ Proposal: Release Process [#1997](https://github.com/nodejs/io.js/issues/1997)
+
+* James: when are we cutting over to the converged stream? Thinking of late august, first LTS release in October. Is this a good time? Most users won’t start migrating until next year because of the holidays.
+* Julien: what are other projects doing, when do they release?
+* James: looking it into it, some do it in fall. No clear pattern.
+* Alexis: what is the benefit of being on a fixed release schedule?
+* James: benefit is it makes planning easier.
+* Trevor: coming from the enterprise side, not having a predictable release schedule isn’t useful.
+* Steven: ICU and Unicode has announced that there will be a yearly release. It’s been helpful for planning.
+* James: It also ties into our regular release schedule and merging next into master etc. The next-to-master merge defines when we can do an LTS release. This should happen at least twice a year. The LTS is cut just before a merge (major bump), so by the time a LTS is cut it should have been stable for half a year.
+* James: please kick tires on this proposal, get feedback from the user communities you’re connected to wrt the frequency and release date.
+* Rod: the TSC should consider the timeframe, and the requirement that there should be two next-to-master merge yearly.
+* Trevor: how does this fit with a 6-week release schedule on master?
+* James: depends on the schedule.
+* Domenic: I don’t see the problem. Just take a 6 months old release and turn it into an LTS.
+* Rod/James/Trevor: because version numbers. The LTS version number needs to be a continuation of a release version.
+* Rod: fixed date, or part of the month.
+* Chris, Rod: get feedback, comment on the issue 
+
+### Next Meeting
+
+July 15th 2015