|
| 1 | +# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2025-06-11 |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Links |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +* **Recording**: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqs7qlmnFsE> |
| 6 | +* **GitHub Issue**: <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1748> |
| 7 | +* **Minutes Google Doc**: <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vs6SFsmasb-n_3XLPt6XU6CN9JHe8YiM2YmrBXqmlWg/edit?tab=t.0> |
| 8 | + |
| 9 | +## Present |
| 10 | + |
| 11 | +* Ruben Bridgewater @BridgeAR (voting member) |
| 12 | +* Gireesh Punathil @gireeshpunathil (voting member) |
| 13 | +* Joyee Cheung @joyeecheung (voting member) |
| 14 | +* Chengzhong Wu @legendecas (voting member) |
| 15 | +* Matteo Collina @mcollina (voting member) |
| 16 | +* Filip Skokan @panva (voting member) |
| 17 | +* Darshan Sen @RaisinTen (voting member) |
| 18 | +* Richard Lau @richardlau (voting member) |
| 19 | +* Robert Nagy @ronag (voting member) |
| 20 | +* Paolo Insogna @ShogunPanda (voting member) |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +## Agenda |
| 23 | + |
| 24 | +### Announcements |
| 25 | + |
| 26 | +No announcements |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +### Reminders |
| 29 | + |
| 30 | +* Remember to nominate people for the [contributor spotlight](https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/reconizing-contributors.md#bi-monthly-contributor-spotlight) |
| 31 | + |
| 32 | +### CPC and Board Meeting Updates |
| 33 | + |
| 34 | +\*Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting. |
| 35 | + |
| 36 | +### nodejs/node |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +* Update npm to v11 in Node.js v22 #58423 |
| 39 | + * Matteo: present the problem, including the deprecation warning |
| 40 | + * Richard: the question is whether this major version is a breaking change for the user of Node.js. There has always be tension between the non-LTS policy of npm and breaking changes for Node.js user. There will be a point in which we would need to upgrade. We should make a decision because it’s semver-major. |
| 41 | + * Paolo: … |
| 42 | + * Richard: …, I have not seen any bug reports for npm 11 in our main tracker. |
| 43 | + * Ruben: It does not sound that the update will impact our users massively. We have no way around it. |
| 44 | + * Gireesh: the list look ok, despite users. We should be synchronize with NPM on the LTS policy. |
| 45 | + * Richard: npm does not have an LTS policy and they won’t implement it. We have always handled it on a case-by-case basis. They are not bend their release policy for us, it is what it is. |
| 46 | + * Matteo: it’s a breaking change for npm because they dropped support for old non-LTS Node.js versions. |
| 47 | + * Paolo: Let’s annoy people now, it’s better to update now than in 6+ months time when a security risk happen. |
| 48 | + * Richard: we have a policy for shipping breaking change security releases. I’m on the fence of approving this. |
| 49 | + * Paolo: it’s better to do now and annoy people at this point than in the future where 22 might be in maintenance. |
| 50 | + * Richard: We should be having the discussion in the PR. |
| 51 | +* doc: clarify the scope of `--disallow-code-generation-from-strings` [#58328](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/58328) |
| 52 | + * Chengzhong: the PR scope is to clarify the scope. The objection from Chalker is about not setting this in stone. Extending the behavior is correct. |
| 53 | + * Filip: The original documentation and the proposed PR are not clear enough. The documentation should leave to no confusion or interpretation if it does work on imports as well. |
| 54 | + * Chengzhong: Please comment on the PR |
| 55 | + * Joyee: People should be aware that this is a V8 flag, and it can go away at any time. |
| 56 | + * Chengzhong: We should not remove any of the V8 flags. |
| 57 | + * Darshan: there is already a section for V8 flags. |
| 58 | + * Joyee: we should move this flag there. |
| 59 | +* Revert <https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/56664> [#58282](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/58282) |
| 60 | + * Matteo: we discussed it last time, there was no activity on the PR, please chime in. |
| 61 | + * Filip: we should get a feeling from Colin. |
| 62 | + * Matteo: Can you please write the question on the PR? |
| 63 | + * Filip: Yes. |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +### nodejs/TSC |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +* Self-serve model for funding Node.js work [#1747](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1747) |
| 68 | + * Darshan presents the problem |
| 69 | + * Gireesh: there is the legal aspect and the operational aspect. |
| 70 | + * Matteo: The foundation staff has been adamant that no list of people to be included in the website for legal reason. |
| 71 | + * Ronag: I’m in favor. Also people that have ideas for new features. I think this would be difficult to do in an organization. I think this would be easy to achieve outside of the organization / so it does not happen on the legal aspect of the Foundation. |
| 72 | + * Darshan: we could have this in a GitHub list in another markdown file or a wiki page. |
| 73 | + * Robert: does GitHub has a feature for this? |
| 74 | + * Darshan: No idea. |
| 75 | + * Matteo: this is a feature request we can bring to github. |
| 76 | + * Darshan: I propose we create such a list on the github org. Which repository should we include? |
| 77 | + * Matteo: I propose the Admin repository. |
| 78 | +* Moving from our CNA to OpenJS CNA [#1745](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1745) |
| 79 | +* Let's talk about the CI situation [#1614](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1614) |
| 80 | + * Gireesh: in a previous meeting, we should remove it from tsc-agenda and create a champion. He sent a mail asking for objection. There were no objections. Going to reply yo the mail and ask for a champion. |
| 81 | + |
| 82 | +## Strategic Initiatives |
| 83 | + |
| 84 | +## Upcoming Meetings |
| 85 | + |
| 86 | +* **Node.js Project Calendar**: <https://nodejs.org/calendar> |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar. |
0 commit comments