Node.js Foundation Core Technical Committee (CTC) Meeting 2016-09-21

[Trott]

Time

UTC Wed 21-Sep-2016 20:00:

Timezone	Date/Time
US / Pacific	Wed 21-Sep-2016 13:00
US / Mountain	Wed 21-Sep-2016 14:00
US / Central	Wed 21-Sep-2016 15:00
US / Eastern	Wed 21-Sep-2016 16:00
Amsterdam	Wed 21-Sep-2016 22:00
Berlin	Wed 21-Sep-2016 22:00
Moscow	Wed 21-Sep-2016 23:00
Tokyo	Thu 22-Sep-2016 05:00
Sydney	Thu 22-Sep-2016 06:00

Or in your local time:

• http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Node.js+Foundation+Core%20Technical%20Committee%20(CTC)+Meeting+2016-09-21&iso=20160921T20
• or http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=8pm+UTC%2C+Sep+21%2C+2016+in+local+time

Links

• Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-PS20PGCJQIi4_quBHqVgrQNJeJP10NH21wUelcMhfw
• Previous Minutes Google Doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kW9wLdfojpIGbu3fQMrtr7S_RJFq8CWupoKnmtWw17Q

Agenda

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

nodejs/node

• deps: update V8 to 5.4 #8317

nodejs/CTC

• Scheduling Meetings #14
• Decide on what problem points for ES Modules we care about the most. #15

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)
• Myles Borins @thealphanerd (CTC)
• Sakthipriyan Vairamani @thefourtheye (observer)
• 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]

If we can get resolution on the EP issue ahead of the meeting (which really ought to be do-able), then we have no agenda, unless there are things folks want to add.

Standup section is ready for people who want to fill that out early.

[ofrobots]

I've added the label ctc-agenda to #8317 as well.

[Trott]

@ofrobots Can you provide some idea of what you hope to get out of discussing it at the meeting?

• Is it just information you want to provide to other CTC members?
• Is there a decision that needs to be made? If so, what is that decision?

Thanks!

[ofrobots]

We need to make a decision on whether we should land #8317, which upgrades us to V8 5.4, onto master. This is breaking from tradition in that V8 5.4 is a beta branch at the moment, and we have traditionally waited till a V8 branch ships as stable before landing it. OTOH, we do intend/hope to ship v7.0 with V8 5.4, and it would be good to start getting some testing with it on master. More details in the issue. /cc @targos.

[Trott]

I suppose nodejs/CTC#14 should be added to the agenda, although i'd kind of like to see if we can come to resolution on such a thorny issue in GitHub.

[Trott]

@ofrobots It seems to me that the basic case for landing in master is laid out by you in #8317 (comment).

Subsequent comments suggest to me that @jasnell is, on balance, in favor despite having some concerns. (@jasnell: Am I correct about that?)

I am in favor of landing it in master, for what that's worth.

@addaleax used a positive GitHub reaction for @targos's request to land in master. So I'm guessing that's another vote in favor. (@addaleax, is that correct?)

Other than @jasnell, no one has expressed significant concerns. And @nodejs/ctc has been @-mentioned on the thread.

Trying to keep pushing on this "let's resolve stuff in GitHub when at all possible", so: Any other CTC members want to weigh in (here or in the issue) with a +1, -1 or "no opinion" on landing that PR in master?

[addaleax]

@addaleax used a positive GitHub reaction for @targos's request to land in master. So I'm guessing that's another vote in favor. (@addaleax, is that correct?)

I wasn’t aware that this would necessarily mean voting, but yes, I’m +1 on doing that!

[MylesBorins]

I am +1 on landing the V8 upgrade on master as well

On Tue, Sep 20, 2016, 7:16 AM Anna Henningsen notifications@github.com
wrote:

@addaleax https://github.com/addaleax used a positive GitHub reaction
for @targos https://github.com/targos's request to land in master. So
I'm guessing that's another vote in favor. (@addaleax
https://github.com/addaleax, is that correct?)

I wasn’t aware that this would necessarily mean voting, but yes, I’m +1 on
doing that!

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8656 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecVwkxkOjyI_1gpHcxr3Xj2ibWcdFKks5qr8BzgaJpZM4KA_1H
.

[evanlucas]

I'm +1 on landing it in master

[Fishrock123]

I don't like the idea with landing a beta V8 given the problems that has landed us in the past. Are we getting some guarentee it will be out mid october or something?

[ofrobots]

@Fishrock123 can you elaborate on which problems?

[rvagg]

I'm not going to attend this meeting, I'm unwell at the moment so need to not be skimping on sleep as much as I usually do. @Trott I suppose you'd better take this one again since you're on the ball here.

I'm a +1 on merging in 4.5 so we have ample time to understand the performance profile, iron out any bugs and just be more generally prepared for v7. Landing last minute hasn't been the greatest strategy for us in the past so I'm in favour of special casing the V8 version-just-before-major-release.

[jasnell]

I am also +1 on getting V8 5.4 beta landed in master so long as we can get a commitment from the @nodejs/v8 team to ensure that any issues that come up will be looked at fairly quickly and the timeline for 5.4 going stable will not slip beyond the currently expected schedule. I will be cutting the first beta build of v7 sometime today after I get the v7.x and v7.x-staging branches caught back up to master and get the proposal PR updated --- should be later on today before the CTC call. That beta build will include the 5.4 beta.

[jasnell]

FWIW, my main concern on this has not necessarily been landing the 5.4 beta but on changing the process for how we land non-stable V8 versions in master without seeking CTC consensus first.

[Fishrock123]

@Fishrock123 can you elaborate on which problems?

All the various VM-related issues 0.12 has, Array#includes removal in a beta, I think there's been other less notable cases too.

[indutny]

+1 for landing V8 5.4 on master.

[Fishrock123]

Sorry for adding it so late, but we really need to discuss nodejs/CTC#15

[misterdjules]

I won't be able to attend this meeting.

[bmeck]

I won't be here this week, prepping for TC39 is the only update really.

[Trott]

If anyone is interested in keeping the agenda short, here's how to possibly get two items off the agenda or minimize the time we spend discussing them (and high fives all around for asynchronous decision making):

• If your GitHub handle is @jasnell, @ofrobots, @bnoordhuis, @chrisdickinson, @indutny, @mhdawson, @shigeki, or @thealphanerd, you can register your vote (including "I abstain and will not be voting on this") on The Async Hooks EP. It currently has 8 yes votes and 2 abstentions.
• If your GitHub handle is @bnoordhuis, @chrisdickinson, @shigeki, @mhdawson, @misterdjules, @mscdex, or @trevnorris, you can register your vote (including "I abstain and will not be voting on this") on the landing-the-V8-beta-in-master issue. Currently, we have 8 in favor and 1 no (or no-ish?).

Having a quorum vote ahead of time on these issues (especially the second one) won't guarantee that we don't talk about them, but it certainly opens up the possibility that we keep discussion short or even skip it altogether.

[MylesBorins]

I abstain from the async hooks vote

On Wed, Sep 21, 2016, 3:39 PM Rich Trott notifications@github.com wrote:

If anyone is interested in keeping the agenda short, here's how to get two
items off the agenda (and high fives all around for asynchronous decision
making):

If your GitHub handle is @jasnell https://github.com/jasnell,
@ofrobots https://github.com/ofrobots, @bnoordhuis
https://github.com/bnoordhuis, @chrisdickinson
https://github.com/chrisdickinson, @indutny
https://github.com/indutny, @mhdawson https://github.com/mhdawson,
@shigeki https://github.com/shigeki, or @thealphanerd
https://github.com/TheAlphaNerd, you can register your vote
(including "I abstain and will not be voting on this") on The Async Hooks
EP. It currently has 8 yes votes and 2 abstentions.

If your GitHub handle is @bnoordhuis https://github.com/bnoordhuis,
@chrisdickinson https://github.com/chrisdickinson, @shigeki
https://github.com/shigeki, @mhdawson https://github.com/mhdawson,
@misterdjules https://github.com/misterdjules, @mscdex
https://github.com/mscdex, or @trevnorris
https://github.com/trevnorris, you can register your vote (including
"I abstain and will not be voting on this") on the
landing-the-V8-beta-in-master issue. Currently, we have 8 in favor and 1 no
(or no-ish?).

Having a quorum vote ahead of time on these issues (especially the second
one) won't guarantee that we don't talk about them, but it certainly opens
up the possibility that we keep discussion short or even skip it
altogether.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#8656 (comment), or mute
the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAecV1Nq7ItkNn8lQWJVPNEN65aG8k3dks5qsYgDgaJpZM4KA_1H
.

[Trott]

@thealphanerd wrote:

I abstain from the async hooks vote

With that, the Async Hooks EP passes. 🎉 8 yes votes, 3 abstentions, and 7 votes that who knows but that's OK because 8 > 7.

• @trevnorris Fell free to change the status from DRAFT to ACCEPTED and merge it!
• @joshgav Let me know if you need help tallying who voted how for the minutes. (I think the only ones that came in after last week's meeting are @addaleax and @thealphanerd, both of whom abstained.)

[Fishrock123]

I'm a little worried we are overdoing the voting here...

What we actually care about is if people have concerns, because we really need to know about concerns if there are any.

Edit: this is specifically regarding async_hooks

[mscdex]

+1 to landing new V8 in master as long as it's still passing all tests and citgm and the like.

[Trott]

@Fishrock123 I assume you are referring to the land-on-master issue and not the EP issue (as that was on the agenda a bunch). I agree that we need to allow people to express concerns on the land-on-master issue and I apologize for giving the impression otherwise.

[Fishrock123]

@Trott I am talking about the EP. (As specified above.)

[indutny]

👍 for async_wrap EP!