Python strategic initiative reporting

[rvagg]

Ref: #657 #642

Since launching the strategic initiative things haven't exactly been peachy. We're essentially down to a single contributor doing the bulk of the work to push forward on Python 3 compatibility progress and we're still facing an EOY Python 2 EOL. Homebrew even made a threat a while back to remove Node due to its Python 3 incompatibility and I'm not sure of the status of that but we haven't held up our end of that.

I'd like to suggest that the TSC invite @cclauss, if he's willing, to give a status update, maybe on an ongoing basis in a meeting and/or here?

As far as I'm aware, we're making fairly good progress in node-gyp, progress in Build has somewhat stalled but it's not terrible, progress in nodejs/node is a little lagging I think. I have a hard time keeping my head around exactly what the progress is and what steps need to be made and am thankful that @cclauss has been so dogged in pushing progress, because nobody else is left doing it.

[cclauss]

👍 Nice note — thanks. I am ready, willing, and able. Besides, doggedly is what I do...

My preferred method would be a markdown file that I can keep updating as we progress. Alternatively, we could just keep adding status updates to this issue. Being more strategic is a wise move with 167 days until Python 2 end of life.

[Trott]

My preferred method would be a markdown file that I can keep updating as we progress. Alternatively, we could just keep adding status updates to this issue. Being more strategic is a wise move with 167 days until Python 2 end of life.

I can't speak for the rest of the TSC, but I'm content with whatever works for you in terms of providing information. The main purpose (for me, at least) would be to provide you with an opportunity to call attention to something that someone else can help with--a PR that is lacking approvals, a task that someone needs to do, or whatever. Second, if it gives more visibility to the effort and either encourages or enables others to help out, then that's great too, obviously.

[mhdawson]

I think we should plan to review the progress in TSC meetings based on the markdown file @cclauss mentions as part of the strategic initiative review, with an open invite for @cclauss to come to the TSC meeting to walk us through the current status or identify issues where more help is needed when he believes that would be useful.

@nodejs/tsc thoughts?

[cjihrig]

I can't speak for the rest of the TSC, but I'm content with whatever works for you in terms of providing information.

That SGTM. And I agree that reviewing the markdown file as part of the strategic initiatives is a good idea.

[mhdawson]

@cclauss do you have an initial version of the markdown document? We should probably add a link to it in https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/Strategic-Initiatives.md instead of the link that is there for the the "Python 3 & GYP" entry

[cclauss]

I will send it 24 hours.

[sam-github]

After a long discussion with @cclauss this morning, I reworked the description of nodejs/node#25789 so it is up-to-date and reflects our suggested plan.

At least, I think it does! @cclauss PTAL

I think we are on track for 13.x preferring Python 3, and for 12.x allowing Python 3, if we keep working at it.

Note specially our "QA" plan, which I believe to be agreed to by @sam-github @rvagg and @cclauss , but if anyone else has alternate QA suggestions, please bring them up.

[mhdawson]

@cclauss, @sam-github does this still need to be open?

[cclauss]

nodejs/node#25789 Is our living document. We are not done but I the lines of communication remain open to all interested parties. I believe we can close this.