From 009eb38de1c5510e60a64743ffdf8cc0b7f3ee65 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aviv Keller Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 16:23:59 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 1/4] feat(minutes): 2025/07/04 --- meetings/2025-07-04.md | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 40 insertions(+) create mode 100644 meetings/2025-07-04.md diff --git a/meetings/2025-07-04.md b/meetings/2025-07-04.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cfabdbd --- /dev/null +++ b/meetings/2025-07-04.md @@ -0,0 +1,40 @@ +# Node.js Website Team Meeting 2025-07-04 + +## Present + +- Aviv Keller @avivkeller +- Claudio Wunder @ovflowd +- Augustin Mauroy @AugustinMauroy +- flakey5 @flakey5 +- Brian Muenzenmeyer @bmuenzenmeyer +- Dario Piotrowicz @dario-piotrowicz +- Caner Akdas @canerakdas +- Matt Cowley @MattIPv4 + +## Agenda + +### nodejs/nodejs.org + +- https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/pull/7978 + - Brian: This PR changes how we handle content review. + - Claudio: Historically, the website team didn't need to weigh in (since there was no real content). But that's changed with the Learn initiative. We need to, at the end of the day, protect ourselves. We shouldn't take ownership for content that we aren't experts on. + - Aviv: In the previous setup, we had partial authority when no one was explicitly designated. But what if someone *is* authorized but becomes unresponsive? + - Claudio: In open source, there isn't a formal concept of "authority" over content. Anyone can block a PR without introducing excessive process or bureaucracy. + - Brian: Was this triggered by a specific incident? + - Claudio: Yes and no. There *was* an incident, but it was a misunderstanding and fairly isolated. + - Aviv: If the system isn't broken, maybe it doesn’t need to be fixed. + - Brian: +1 + - Claudio: +1 + - Matt: The old wording in the guidelines was intentionally vague. Clarity is also important. + - Aviv: Let's continue this discussion in the PR itself. Feel free to refer to the minutes for a refresher on this conversation. + +- https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/pull/8040 + - Claudio: What if we need to add owners to many files at once? + - Aviv: How often does that scenario realistically occur? + - Claudio: Fairly often, for example, when people need to change pings or ownership, it becomes messy. A good system needs to be maintainable over time. + - Matt: +1 in favor of introducing a `CODEOWNERS` file. + - Aviv: Should we scrap the entire idea of mapping articles to Core APIs? + - Claudio: No, we should just separate it from the review process. There are many ways to map files to relevant core APIs. + - Augustin: A simple mapping won’t work for the Learn content. It's too complex. + - Claudio: Core collaborators and TSC members are strong in technical domains but transforming technical documentation into Learn articles introduces another layer of complexity, perhaps AI will help? + - **Discussion cut short, as we ran out of time** From 0b7733345b47de44420eb2a153c7b921fecf2d22 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aviv Keller Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 16:30:39 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 2/4] fix date --- meetings/{2025-07-04.md => 2025-08-04.md} | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) rename meetings/{2025-07-04.md => 2025-08-04.md} (98%) diff --git a/meetings/2025-07-04.md b/meetings/2025-08-04.md similarity index 98% rename from meetings/2025-07-04.md rename to meetings/2025-08-04.md index cfabdbd..473a473 100644 --- a/meetings/2025-07-04.md +++ b/meetings/2025-08-04.md @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@ -# Node.js Website Team Meeting 2025-07-04 +# Node.js Website Team Meeting 2025-08-04 ## Present From d086d41b0c2444ed3c1cf3d43aff6768d4d1fe75 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aviv Keller Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 16:33:30 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 3/4] Update 2025-08-04.md Co-authored-by: Augustin Mauroy <97875033+AugustinMauroy@users.noreply.github.com> --- meetings/2025-08-04.md | 1 + 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) diff --git a/meetings/2025-08-04.md b/meetings/2025-08-04.md index 473a473..66f1c16 100644 --- a/meetings/2025-08-04.md +++ b/meetings/2025-08-04.md @@ -25,6 +25,7 @@ - Aviv: If the system isn't broken, maybe it doesn’t need to be fixed. - Brian: +1 - Claudio: +1 + - Augustin: +1 - Matt: The old wording in the guidelines was intentionally vague. Clarity is also important. - Aviv: Let's continue this discussion in the PR itself. Feel free to refer to the minutes for a refresher on this conversation. From 0d5d54c60a63e6adad1193aaa0dba6c9f133b93f Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Aviv Keller Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2025 16:34:07 -0400 Subject: [PATCH 4/4] Update 2025-08-04.md Co-authored-by: Augustin Mauroy <97875033+AugustinMauroy@users.noreply.github.com> --- meetings/2025-08-04.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/meetings/2025-08-04.md b/meetings/2025-08-04.md index 66f1c16..2e1348d 100644 --- a/meetings/2025-08-04.md +++ b/meetings/2025-08-04.md @@ -36,6 +36,6 @@ - Matt: +1 in favor of introducing a `CODEOWNERS` file. - Aviv: Should we scrap the entire idea of mapping articles to Core APIs? - Claudio: No, we should just separate it from the review process. There are many ways to map files to relevant core APIs. - - Augustin: A simple mapping won’t work for the Learn content. It's too complex. + - Augustin: A simple mapping won’t work for the Learn content. It's too complex, and we need technical writers. - Claudio: Core collaborators and TSC members are strong in technical domains but transforming technical documentation into Learn articles introduces another layer of complexity, perhaps AI will help? - **Discussion cut short, as we ran out of time**