Minutes from 20150309 Meeting

meetings/2015-02-24/minutes.md

@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ No discussion.
 **IS:** Not even talking “high level”. What does it look like if the projects were to merge? We need to align on that. What does success look like? Know where each other stands will help progress.  
 **IR:** I like the idea of issuing a public statement of intention and an outline of work toward that goal. Helps with community transparency.  
 **JZ:** I defer to all parties on this. I’m concerned with output.  
-**TM:** Idea of getting together with arbiter needs to happen.
+**TM:** Idea of getting together with arbiter needs to happen.  
 **IS:** TM, do you think it’s reasonable to expect everyone dedicates time, or expect people to do their homework.  
 **TM:** Absolutely, we need people to come prepared. Need to document and score ideas prior to meeting. Work through pros and cons objectively. We’re trying to establish this for when things go bad.  
 **IR:** CS are you willing to facilitate this?  

meetings/2015-03-09/minutes.md

@@ -0,0 +1,144 @@
+# Joyent Node.js Advisory Board Meeting Minutes - March 09, 2015
+
+## Attendees
+Chris Williams (CW)  
+Erik Toth (ET)  
+Cian O’Maidin (CO)  
+Todd Moore (TM)  
+Bert Belder (BB)  
+Issac Roth (IR)  
+Mike Dolan (MD)  
+Scott Hammond (SH)  
+Jim Zemlin (JZ)  
+Trevor Norris (TN)  
+Danese Cooper (DC)  
+Chris Saint-Amant (CS)  
+Dan Shaw (DS)  
+Isaac Schlueter (IS)  
+TJ Fontaine (TF)  
+Gianugo Rabellino (GR)  
+
+
+## Public Recap
+
+### Review Previous Meeting Minutes (ET)
+[2015-02-24 Meeting Minutes](https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/blob/3aa7494459c10b0d1095450837d8220aac24157d/meetings/2015-02-24/minutes.md)  
+
+### Review of Open Action Items (CW, et. al.)  
+**JZ:** Re: reconciliation all input is considered.  
+**SH:** Have reviewed many comments and there was good content there. All comments are welcome and taken into consideration and I believe what we’re doing align with that. Many questions and comments were around technical governance. There has been some work to sketch out a draft that integrates much of the feedback.  
+
+### Open Public Discussion
+No discussion.  
+
+## New Business (Private)
+### Review of Open Action Items (CW, et. al.)  
+n/a  
+
+### New Action Items
+#### Working Group Status (DC, et al)
+**DS:** Everything seems to be in a holding pattern awaiting a clear sense of heading. Particularly interested in API Compatibility WG continuing. Would like to hear from TF as to update from several meetings that happened. If there is need or interest in moving that forward, would love to help.  
+**IR:** Also Community WG needs update.  
+**DS:** Waiting on resolution with BB. There are people that care, but don’t feel like this is effective forum. Those who have been reached out to who represent purely community interest have not wanted to be involved. Lack of participation in open discussion is telling. Can’t agree more that the value is there.  
+**IR:** Do people _really_ care then? They want unification but don’t attend, or do they trust they’re represented?  
+**DS:** They don’t feel represented.  
+**IS:** There are a lot of people who have completely lost trust in Joyent, Node.js and the people running the project.  
+**IR:** There may be some people like that, but surprised no one has showed up.  
+**SH:** There are a lot of people who care but do not show up because of how they’re treated.  
+**IS:** We’re talking about several groups with conflicting goals and priority. The people may just be willing to wait it out and see what happens.  
+**BB:** If you want people to show up, they have to come exactly in that 15 minute time slot. Maybe if we had more discussion on GitHub they would chime in.  
+**IR:** Is it necessary to keep this [community] WG working, or is it futile?  
+**IS:** What has the WG done?  
+**TM:** Obviously we want to include everyone. Anyone working with Node or io.js should come and express an opinion.  
+**BB:** This group is really uninteresting. If you have requests or conversation you can just go to io.js. We’re just a bunch of vendors and we just talk about a lot of high level stuff.  
+**SH:** We’re not here talking about technical issues, so that may be uninteresting.  
+**IR:** I think Andrew Stern from F5 would be interested in being engaged with this.  
+**TF:** I would like to include F5 on the API Compatibility WG.  
+**IR:** But there are other issues he would be interested in participating in. How do people like him participate?  
+**DS:** That’s not the stated goal of the Community WG. It was specifically for end users who had voiced frustration that they didn’t feel like they were a party to decision-making. Bringing in F5 does not accomplish that goal. Should we grow to include more entities? Sure.  
+**IS:** Do we have a list of 100 people who could be considered members of the community and have we contacted them? We have a WG but don’t know what actually happened.  
+**DS:** Great suggestion. Hypothetically, we reach out to these people: do we feel like we’re making valuable use of their time should they show up?  
+**IS:** Agree that inviting 100 people is a bad idea, but was kind of my point. This is not the right meeting and will not scale. If we can’t manage 100 people we can’t manage 100 sources of input.  
+**TM:** On the public side of the meeting even if we don’t attract people they are at least aware and see that people are working on something. Second, if people do come and come prepared with topics, we can extend the meeting. Unless we try and market we won’t know. Worth it on the public side to do a little marketing.  
+**DS:** I think this group needs that influence. The organic attempts to encourage participation haven’t panned out. io.js has specific invitations for contributions. On our end there’s not a clear benefit for participation.  
+**BB:** This meeting is about many different things. You would get more engagement if people were invited to participate with WGs.  
+**IR:** There needs to be a transition plan for this group [AB]. What does that look like? An important part is to include more people and could be a model for doing it in the new world.  
+**DS:** I think that’s something else (not Community WG) and there’s merit to it.  
+**DC:** There is a precedent in the gnome community that the TC did the work and pinged the AB to get information of the direction of business. Skeleton board was also on TC. Apache is different: TC runs project, board runs foundation so TC doesn’t have to worry about trademarks, legal, etc. Anyone can join board meetings and minutes are openly published. I don’t know which of those would make the TC happier in this case.  
+**TF:** Happy with separation between TC and AB. I would be a community representative to board. For example, have opinions on trademark, but don’t want to own it.  
+**JZ:** We already have a rough structure, e.g. Business Board of Directors. WRT advisory boards, we can do that. What’s the ask?  
+**DC:** There’s an expectation moving forward that the TC should be able to change things like trademarks, etc.  
+**BB:** Have to understand that io.js reconciliation plan was written without deep understanding of how a Foundation would operate. Have the expectation that someone with that information would provide feedback and guidance. Very interested in understanding how the proposal should change to reflect reality of Foundation.  
+**SH:** We have a plan to put together this foundation proposal. io.js proposal was put together assuming TC would create documents, but Linux Foundation is handling.  
+**JZ:** That’s correct. The docs are created, but reviewed and edited by stakeholders. Good question regarding AB. At some point business decisions are made by Board of Directors and technical decisions are made by TC. The Foundation has rights to marks, but TC owns API compatibility.  
+**TM:** I’ve experienced that they last a little while in parallel (BoD and AB) and eventually the AB goes away. Usually a community group provides feedback to board.  
+**JZ:** To be clear, my idea is that the AB structure will dissolve. There will be alternate places where everyone participates in the new structure.  
+**BB:** Totally agreed. Could be a group focused on vendors and TC would go to them for understanding their needs.  
+
+
+
+
+#### Status from Linux Foundation (MD)
+**MD:** Reaching out to contacts to setup call for discussing drafts. Sent out drafts of bylaws. Working on technical discussions with BB and TF and have had a few calls. Hopefully will carry in to TC discussion. Drafted a blog post for communicating progress to community.  
+
+#### Node.js/io.js Reconciliation (BB)
+**BB:** There is this feeling that the stakeholders (io.js and Node.js) should get together in a room and hash things out. The io.js team didn’t really feel like it - would prefer to do it online, so a draft was written and posted for community feedback. Hopefully helps everyone understand the io.js community position. I’ve been working with MD and TF to find a compromise, but that isn’t going anywhere mostly because it’s not clear what the Node.js group wants. TF will send proposal after this meeting, but I’m concerned that I’m not negotiating with a “Node.js” group, and instead with only TF. Looking for input from people on this call as to opinions on io.js proposal.  
+**TF:** To clarify, there is a draft that will be circulated after this meeting. The Node.js team will schedule a call this week to discuss and draft will be sent out. Working on creating Technical Governance for foundation and creating a solid path forward for Node.  
+**BB:** May I suggest that the proposal goes on the internet somewhere.  
+**GR:** Who is on the Node.js committee?  
+**BB:** Participants from Joyent, Microsoft, and IBM. [Additional names provided, but not recorded.]  
+**GR:** Would love to see progress. I think io.js proposal is a good starting point and would like to understand what is on the other side. Lets make sure that there’s a good timeline in mind.  
+**TF:** Draft will be sent around after this meeting.  
+**DS:** Any thoughts on current io.js proposal?  
+**DC:** Some items WRT trademarks are something I haven’t seen before. For example, TC doesn’t typically own or manage trademark. Board manages that and issues resolved through discussion.  
+**IS:** Can we get that feedback on the proposal such that we can iterate on it?  
+**DS:** Yeah, that’s an easy solve.  
+**SH:** I feel like the main issue is the TC decision. I would rather segregate this and let the Linux Foundation do their thing and have the TC conversation separately.  
+**JZ:** We’re down to a fairly narrow set of issues, so let’s stay focused on that.  
+**IR:** The response [Node.js proposal] should have been released prior to the meeting.  
+**TF:** The concern was that this meeting would get derailed on details of the proposals.  
+**IS:** So there are things that should belong on the business side. We have not aligned on issues, but said issues have not been identified.  
+**SH:** We need to have conversations between TF and BB to make progress.  
+**BB:** “Progress” is an open concept. MD tried to write down what TF wants. It was an attempt to identify what TF wants, but it sounds like the true proposal will be circulated.  
+**TF:** New document provides additional context.  
+**CW:** We need to identify ONE owner to drive this for the next meeting.  
+**JZ:** There is progress. Let’s not be so hard on each other. LF will continue to drive. We will continue to broker a convergence. Will refine external communication, but progress is being made. Let’s move forward with current plan.  
+**BB:** In order to get community support we have to do it in the open, meaning we open up the process, not the outcome. This is needed to build trust.  
+**JZ:** I agree.  
+**BB:** We need to discussion in the open and will cross-post in io.js.  
+**IS:** Any reconciliation announcement needs to have a link back to the discussion.  
+
+
+## New Action Items
+**TF:** Send Node.js Technical governance proposal out to interested parties.  
+
+
+## Next Meeting
+Please join our next meeting, Monday March 23, 2015 at 2:00 PM PST / 5:00 PM EST at https://global.gotomeeting.com/join/524998381 or please dial-in in using your telephone.  
+
+
+```
+United States: +1 (626) 521-0010  
+Austria: +43 (0) 7 2088 1033  
+Belgium: +32 (0) 28 08 4296  
+Canada: +1 (647) 497-9371  
+Denmark: +45 (0) 69 91 89 21  
+Finland: +358 (0) 942 41 5770  
+France: +33 (0) 170 950 585  
+Germany: +49 (0) 692 5736 7205  
+Ireland: +353 (0) 19 030 050  
+Italy: +39 0 693 38 75 50  
+Netherlands: +31 (0) 208 080 208  
+New Zealand: +64 (0) 9 925 0481  
+Norway: +47 21 04 29 12  
+Spain: +34 911 82 9890  
+Sweden: +46 (0) 852 500 179  
+Switzerland: +41 (0) 435 0167 65  
+United Kingdom: +44 (0) 330 221 0096  
+
+Access Code: 273-347-861  
+Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting  
+
+Meeting ID: 273-347-861  
+
+```  

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)
 
+ * 2015-03-09
+  - [Minutes](2015-03-09/minutes.html)
  * 2015-02-24
   - [Minutes](2015-02-24/minutes.html)
  * 2015-01-29