doc: added TC meeting minutes 2014-12-17

Closes #163

PR-URL: #178
Reviewed-By: Ben Noordhuis <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Bert Belder <[email protected]>

Author: rvagg

doc/tc-meetings/2014-12-17.md

@@ -0,0 +1,91 @@
+# io.js TC Meeting 2014-12-17
+
+## Links
+
+* **Google Hangouts Video**: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7s-VJLQEWXg
+* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/163
+* **Original Minutes Google Doc**: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PoqGfxpfTFKv5GcKmhMM2siZpPjT9Ba-ooBi-ZbYNi0
+
+## Agenda
+
+Extracted from https://github.com/iojs/io.js/labels/tc-agenda prior to meeting.
+
+* Bundle tick processor with iojs #158 https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/158
+* Release Cycle Proposal #168 https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/168
+* Module search security #176 https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pull/176 
+* Dealing with feature requests 
+
+## Review of last meeting
+
+* Move readable-stream to io.js and flip authoritative flow of code, docs and issues
+* Soft deprecation of domains, accept PR #15 as last feature addition
+* Caine, discussion continued on GitHub
+* Project name is “io.js”, binary name is “iojs”
+* Extending options from prototype, discussion continued on GitHub
+* Promises statement for issue #11
+* Working with nvm, etc.
+
+## Minutes
+
+### Present
+
+* Bert (TC)
+* Chris (TC)
+* Trevor (TC)
+* Isaac (TC)
+* Rod (build, facilitator)
+
+### Bundle tick processor with iojs #158 
+
+https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/158
+
+* Bert: important because it’s tied to the version of V8, not practical to put it in npm because one is needed for each version
+* Isaac: this is minimal and shouldn’t set a standard for just adding more stuff to core (i.e. keep core minimal), so +1
+
++1 from Isaac, +1 from Bert, **no disagreement amongst group, consensus has been reached on bundling a tick processor with releases.**
+
+### Release Cycle Proposal #168 
+
+https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/168
+
+* Bert & Isaac discussed how this feeds into the ability to have frequent releases. Discussed semver plays into this.
+* Rod: consensus seems to be around having stability, predictability, lead-time but more frequent releases.
+* **Bert: Move discussion to #168. Still premature to discuss here.**
+
+### Module search security #176
+
+https://github.com/iojs/io.js/pull/176 
+
+* Limiting node_modules search path to $HOME as a top-level
+* Isaac ~ -1 on this because EACCES already happens when you don’t have permission
+* Isaac and Bert bikeshedded Windows C:\ writability and security on Windows. i.e. if someone can install code on a shared system above where a node application is running (e.g. C:\) then you could have untrusted code run by your application.
+* Isaac: this PR is only addressing projects running in the home directory.
+* Rod: module system is locked-down, TC needs to come to consensus that this is a _security_ issue and therefore warrants breaking it.
+* Chris: `useradd node_modules` is a situation this could be a problem
+* Isaac: not convinced this is a security problem, even the `useradd` situation requires root access on a system.
+* Bert: this is an academic issue, it may _feel_ wrong but that doesn’t mean it’s strictly a security issue.
+* Isaac: proposed the issue be closed as not a security issue.
+* **No consensus that this is a security issue. Move discussion back to GitHub, potentially close issue, potentially bringing discussion back here. Encourage users to bring examples of real problems.**
+
+
+### Dealing with feature requests
+
+* Bert: asking for discussion about what to do with feature requests that come up but aren’t clearly something that are wanted.
+* Bert: should we put a time limit on feature requests? Would like some guidelines for how to deal with these.
+* Chris: have already been putting a 4-6 day window before closing them. If there is no code then it’s easier to close. If there is code then there could be more discussion.
+* Isaac: this is a broader problem about the roadmap-setting process.
+* Rod & Isaac: It’s up to someone on TC (or elsewhere) to start coming up with a roadmap, or at least start the discussion.
+* **Agreed to start a GitHub discussion on roadmap and soliciting feedback from the community.**
+* Rod: in an open model, it’s up to TC and those with commit access to take the initiative to just close things, given enough warning and chance for discussion and better arguments.
+* Isaac: builtins (like Blog of FileReader) are TC39 / WhatWG groups out there that are doing this at the language & V8 level and we pull from there. It should be straightforward to close those issues.
+* Bert: the roadmap shouldn’t be about locking down the dev process and tightly limiting scope of what’s added.
+* **Agreed that feedback to all contributors (including TC), regarding closing issues: close issues that are instinctively bad and worth closing (close can be undone), anything potentially controversial can be flagged with a “will close” but give ~ 1 week for discussion, disagreement, lobbying etc.**
+
+
+### Logos
+
+* **Agreed that the release is the only _technical_ blocker from the TC’s perspective to a logo, so deferring discussion till then. Encourage interested parties from discussing this further on GitHub issue #37.**
+
+### Next meeting
+
+* Bert proposed 2014-12-30 as next meeting time