chore: add notes for 08/03

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: <https://hackmd.io/@openjs-nodejs/Hy_aiOHBMe> (Private)
+* GitHub Issue: <https://github.com/nodejs/web-team/issues/165>
+
+## 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**: <https://nodejs.org/calendar>
+
+Click `Add to Google Calendar` at the bottom left to add to your own Google
+calendar.