diff --git a/meetings/2026-08-03.md b/meetings/2026-08-03.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..e5fda11 --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2026-08-03.md @@ -0,0 +1,125 @@ +# Node.js Web Team Meeting 2026-08-03 + +## Time + +**UTC Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 07:00 PM**: + +| Timezone | Date/Time | +| -------- | --------- | +| US / Pacific | Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 12:00 PM | +| US / Mountain | Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 01:00 PM | +| US / Central | Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 02:00 PM | +| US / Eastern | Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 03:00 PM | +| EU / Western | Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 08:00 PM | +| EU / Central | Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 09:00 PM | +| EU / Eastern | Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 10:00 PM | +| Moscow | Mon, Aug 03, 2026, 10:00 PM | +| Chennai | Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 12:30 AM | +| Hangzhou | Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 03:00 AM | +| Tokyo | Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 04:00 AM | +| Sydney | Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 05:00 AM | + +Or in your local time: + +* https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Node.js+Foundation+Web%20Team+Meeting+2026-08-03&iso=20260803T190000 +* or https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=07%3A00%20PM+UTC%2C+Aug%203%2C%202026%20in%20local%20time + +## Links + +* Minutes: (Private) +* GitHub Issue: + +## Present + +* Aviv Keller @avivkeller +* Brian Muenzenmeyer @bmuenzenmeyer +* Claudio Wunder @ovflowd +* Matt Cowley @MattIPv4 +* flakey5 @flakey5 +* Augustin Mauroy @AugustinMauroy + +### Observers/Guests + +* Joe Sepi @joesepi + +## Agenda + +### Announcements + +_No announcements._ + +### Issues and Pull Requests + +Extracted from **web-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests from the +**nodejs org** prior to the meeting. + +#### nodejs/nodejs.org + +* Add a sticky effect to the top search box + [#9077](https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/issues/9077) + * Aviv: does not want to go in this direction personally, but the issue was + only opened a few days ago so it is worth a quick decision. A permanently + visible bar also makes the site feel crowded, as a full row of links stays on + screen at all times. + * Brian: +1 + * Matt: A "back to top" button may be more viable now that some pages: + particularly doc-kit output, are excessively long. + * Aviv: +1 + * **Outcome**: A back-to-top button is worth pursuing as an alternative. + +* Define how partners should be ranked + [#8995](https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/issues/8995) + * Waiting for TSC decision + +#### nodejs/node + +* build, doc: move to redesign + [#62045](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/62045) + * On agenda for visibility, meeting ran out of time. + +### `doc-kit` npm scope + +* Aviv: The obvious `@doc-kit` scope cannot be obtained, because we do not hold + a trademark on the term. +* Brian: stirred this up again a couple of days ago after finding a note in the + TSC repository and in nodejs/admin, from Ethan Arrowood's work on Undici and + potentially Amaro, that lands a pattern describing the `@nodejs` scope as what + we should use for general public consumption of things in our ecosystem. He + would qualify doc-kit as that, and would much prefer using something that + exists over creating another scope to maintain. + * Matt: +1, though that scope currently has no packages in it, so we would + be the first. + * Claudio: -1, we will be publishing a lot of packages, and the ultimate + long-term aim should be for doc-kit to move out of the Node.js org. +* Matt: in the short term it should go in the `@nodejs` scope, because that is + where it lives today. If and when it becomes its own OpenJS project, we would + have far more weight to go back to npm and ask for the actual `@doc-kit` + scope — npm will look on an independent OpenJS project more kindly than a + random repo. +* Aviv: questioned whether being an independent project is actually a goal. We + currently benefit from Node.js's partnerships, maintainership and reviews; + becoming our own project means our own governance and maintainer group, which + is a lot of work. + * Claudio: We could, however, do it anyway? +* Brian: that is an argument for chartering the web team as a working group, + which we still have not done. +* Matt: doc-kit is far too young to be having the "should it be its own project" + conversation. + * Aviv: +1 + * Claudio: -1 + * Brian: +1, we only have two consumers. +* Brian: A new scope is an N+1 problem and more to maintain. +* Matt: migrating scopes is well-trodden: deprecate the old one, publish to the + new one, tell people to migrate. But, if we use our own scope, at some point the + TSC will come knocking, and we would knowingly be circumventing policy. +* **Outcome**: use the existing `@nodejs` scope, per the written policy, rather + than `@node-core` or a new scope. + +## Q&A, Other + +## Upcoming Meetings + +* **Calendar**: + +Click `Add to Google Calendar` at the bottom left to add to your own Google +calendar.