Merge pull request #39 from totherik/20150424-minutes

20150424 minutes

meetings/2015-04-24/minutes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,132 @@
+# Joyent Node.js Advisory Board Meeting Minutes - April 24, 2015
+
+## Attendees
+Chris Williams (CW)  
+Erik Toth (ET)  
+Todd Moore (TM)  
+Scott Hammond (SH)  
+Julien Gilli (JG)  
+Scott Nicholas (SN)  
+Gianugo Rabellino (GR)  
+Dan Shaw (DS)  
+Mike Dolan (MD)  
+Danese Cooper (DC)  
+Trevor Norris (TN)  
+Bert Belder (BB)  
+
+## Previous Attendees
+Mikeal Rogers (MR)  
+Chris Saint-Amant (CS)  
+Issac Roth (IR)  
+Isaac Schlueter (IS)  
+TJ Fontaine (TF)  
+Jim Zemlin (JZ)  
+Kevin Decker (KD)  
+Cian O’Maidin (CO)  
+
+
+
+## Recap of Previous Meeting
+[2015-04-06 Minutes](https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/blob/7322ad43daaaeedc31dba562501692d566c8b6b4/meetings/2015-04-06/minutes.md)
+
+## Foundation/Reconciliation Status
+**SN:** There’s a good amount on momentum. Largest upcoming milestone is posting of documents demonstrating benefits of foundation and walkthrough of governance. A part of Nodejs.org website will be made available for this. Hopefully will answer a lot of questions from the community and will be made available in the next few days.  
+**DS:** What’s the nature of the info? For how folks are going to be able to participate?  
+**SN:** We received questions WRT getting info on the benefits of the foundation. Foundations require a legal structure, so we’ll post bylaws. They will have description of that aspect as well as description of Technical Committee, etc. We’re setting up another meeting to continue conversations. Conversation to date have been constructive. I believe those minutes will or should be made public.  
+**TM:** There’s also the work in the repo.  
+**SH:** There’s a lot of good conversation happening out in the open. Was a on a panel with DS, BB, MR, DC, JZ, etc and we talked a lot about the two projects, status, etc. There’s a good sense that the efforts are genuine WRT to developing a healthy project under the Node.js Foundation. Quite a few people from the node.js and io.js projects are very interesting in working together in the foundation.  
+**DS:** Feedback from that session was extremely positive. People are excited about what’s to come.  
+**MD:** I discussed with Rod [Vagg] as well. He had some concerns and questions WRT timeline and what are envisioned as steps. Just needed more info around why a foundation is necessary, what it will do. I think we can do better to communicate the value of the foundation.  
+**DS:** Something I keep hearing is that there’s a baseline understanding that foundations are "good" but it’s not clear to people how they can be a part of it. Want to know how to direct these people to the answers they’re looking for.  
+**MD:** I had drafted something and got some feedback, but need to send it around for more feedback. The short answer is that the dev community remains unchanged. There’s no dues or something to participate, but for companies who want to participate as members of the foundation they can join under the various membership levels. In terms of technical community, the TC is the instantiation of that. They just need to join the mailing list, calls, working groups, etc.  
+**DS:** I think it might be worthwhile to articulate why there is no individual membership. There is an expectation that general non-corporate members want to be able to feel a part of this thing and if we don’t address that in a meaningful way now we will be forced to address it later.  
+**TM:** We definitely want to be inclusive.  
+**SH:** We have community membership that is ambiguous, but maybe we flesh that out more. Also discussed a community-representation WG to ensure community has a voice into what the board is doing. Maybe there’s something there.  
+**DS:** We have several folks interested in being active in the Community WG, but no meaningful work for that group to do. People want to do more, but don’t know what to do.  
+**SH:** It sounds like you’re [DS] volunteering to provide suggestions and help move that forward.  
+**DS:** Happy to, but need help from the larger coalition. Once we have that blueprint we can go out and promote that.  
+**DC:** We did this with OpenOffice and the Community WG attended and contributed to board meetings, and brought community perspective/info to board meetings. They also helped with feature prioritization. Was very helpful to TC to have that feedback. Also, helped manage the community in rough times. We let the community self-organize WRT who to send, just told them how many seats they had. Worked out really well - no reason to fear it.  
+**CW:** We have made steps toward this and done a lot of work based on community input. Is that different or in line?  
+**DC:** Right in line with what we’re trying to do.  
+**CW:** We should have someone organize the community and provide to people a "crib sheet" of sorts to get everyone on the same page.  
+**DS:** I would appreciate that outside the Community WG.  
+**CW:** Yes, would be good to have someone champion that.  
+**DS:** Disseminating the message of node.js and io.js coming together under foundation is very important right now. Can we make sure we have someone representing io.js in every AB meeting? That would be constructive until foundation is in place.  
+
+### Node Community WG Schedule (Travis Odom)
+**Travis Odom:** Discussed with DS. Want to try to organize everyone who is interested and see how we can help. We created a Community WG on slack and a few people were mentioned who could be involved in that. Want to setup a schedule to meeting and discuss.  
+**TM:** Doodle polls have worked well in the past.  
+**DS:** CW do you want to get together next week and meet with the Community WG and start building that list of actionable things?  
+**CW:** Why is the Community WG private?  
+**Travis:** I don’t know. We can change that.  
+**CW:** Yes, I’ll work with you on that.  
+
+## Dev Policy Adoption Discussion (JG)
+**JG:** There has been work done in the dev policy and I think some of the new items will help the existing Node.js project a lot. I want to try to adopt some of these items and I’m mentioning here because we want to do it as in the open as possible.  
+**ET:** Where are the changes documented?  
+**JG:** In the next few days or weeks, every item from the policy will become an issue in GitHub and will be open for discussion then.  
+**TM:** Where are you going to place it?  
+**JG:** Some are small technical details, for example having discussion among core team public instead of private. Doesn’t necessarily need approval from the community, but feedback would be great. Other items might be changing how we communicate with collaborators.  
+**TM:** Was thinking cross-posting discussion could be helpful so more people can stay aware of what’s going on.  
+**JG:** Yep, we can do that. I think these changes will bring the two projects closer.  
+**TM:** As we build out a foundation everything will be transparent, so might as well start now.  
+
+## BRING BACK ERIK!
+**DS:** Erik’s an overqualified scribe. Missing out on his input.  
+**TM:** I second that. Now what do we do? Now we’d turn to foundation staff for help. Is there someone we could get to take notes?  
+**CW:** Also, can the foundation cover the GoToMeeting?  
+**MD/SN:** Taking note. We’ll circle back. We have an entire staff for Node.js. Let me pull from my extended team to help with that.  
+
+## Dev Policy for LTS
+**SH:** Would like to see more participation from enterprise constituents on pace, quality, testing, etc. Want help establishing target we should be shooting for.  
+
+## Transition to Foundation
+**CW:** We should start thinking about process/timeline for replacing seats.  
+**SH:** Yes, also should be determining role of AB WRT foundation.  
+
+## Open Public Discussion
+**TN:** API WG meeting?  
+**DS:** Some participants have trouble due to timing, but want representation from node.js camp. Challenging to not have someone representing that core.  
+**JG:** DS had sent an email and I was curious as to how long the meeting would take.  
+**DS:** We need to do some requirements gathering. Want to make sure we have strong enough representation on Node.js side to at least triage suggested items such that people don’t waste time on things that will never happen.  
+**JG:** Yeah, please send details as to how the meeting is structured and how long they are anticipated to take. We should be able to get representation.  
+
+
+## New Business
+
+### DCO/CLA (TM)
+**TM:** Message is lost WRT DCO and CLA usage for corps and individual contributors.  
+**SN:** Can I get more info?  
+**DC:** Joyent originally used CLA for all contributors. After receiving feedback, Joyent CTO pulled individual contributor agreement to appease community, but upset people more. Project has been without CLA since July 2014. Almost immediately it became a problem. Community sees CLA as a barrier to entry. Not everyone has a lawyer to consult. LF created a lightweight DCO that the community is okay adopting.  
+**TM:** The corollary is that we can have a corporate CLA to make it easy for corporations as well.  
+**SN:** From the individual standpoint that’s clear. Is there a corporate CLA in use now?  
+**DC:** I think there is now. It was clear that it’s an _individual_ thing. The corporate CLA would still be required, just not requiring it of individual developers. Of course there’s a loophole.  
+**SN:** There’s a mechanism, but it’s not necessarily 100% accurate.  
+**TM:** Yeah, there’s is a process now, just looking to the LF to bring it forward and formalize it. From a corporate situation, it’s signing the org up.  
+**SN:** There are other mechanisms we can also discuss. Legal team was interested in degree to which the CLA was used at a corporate level.  
+**TM:** We see that corporate participants are interested.  
+**GR:** MS is more interested in DCO.  
+**TM:** Yep, and you can use the DCO. But IANAL.  
+
+### Meeting Agenda (DS)
+**DS:** Would be nice if there was a little more detail as to agenda prior to meeting. The meetings have been productive, but coming in they don’t feel purpose-driven.  
+**DC:** You had suggested a topic per meeting.  
+**TM:** Can we use slack to prepare for the meeting and come up with those things?  
+**DS:** We could but we need someone to get that all together. Don’t want to add to Chris’ workload.  
+**CW:** We could put the agenda for next meeting out _now_. Also, put ideas into board members slack room. Some of us on the periphery [of WG] don’t know what we don’t know.  
+**DC:** In the spirit of having less private convo and more public, I’m happy putting it in public rooms.  
+**DS:** Having that document out prior to the next meeting would be great.  
+
+
+## New Action Items
+- Create "crib sheet" to bring new participants up to speed on AB, LF, etc. and go out to meetups, conferences, Twitter, etc. to disseminate information. (Community WG)
+- Ensure io.js representative attends AB meeting. (CW?)  
+- Schedule Community WG meeting via Doodle. (CW, Travis)  
+- Find a new scribe and new source of GoToMeeting funding. (MD/SN)  
+- Send details to [email protected] WRT to structure of API WG meetings. (DS)  
+
+
+
+
+## Next Meeting
+TBA

meetings/index.md

@@ -4,6 +4,8 @@ board](https://www.joyent.com/blog/node-js-advisory-board).
 Its GitHub repository can be found at
 [http://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board](http://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board)
 
+ * 2015-04-24
+  - [Minutes](2015-04-24/minutes.html)
  * 2015-04-06
   - [Minutes](2015-04-06/minutes.html)
  * 2015-03-23