doc: add minutes from meeting 13 Nov 2024

Signed-off-by: Michael Dawson <[email protected]>

Author: mhdawson

meetings/2024-11-13.md

@@ -0,0 +1,110 @@
+# Node.js Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2024-11-13
+
+## Links
+
+* **Recording**:  <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llzo0-Vnrhk>
+* **GitHub Issue**: <https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1649>
+
+## Present
+
+* Gireesh Punathil @gireeshpunathil (voting member)
+* Chengzhong Wu @legendecas (voting member)
+* Marco Ippolito @marco-ippolito (voting member)
+* Matteo Collina @mcollina (voting member)
+* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (voting member)
+* Rafael Gonzaga @RafaelGSS (voting member)
+* Robert Nagy @ronag (voting member)
+
+## Agenda
+
+### Announcements
+
+* Rafael: Node.js 18.20.5, 23.2.0 were released this week
+
+### Reminders
+
+* Remember to nominate people for the [contributor spotlight](https://github.com/nodejs/node/blob/main/doc/contributing/reconizing-contributors.md#bi-monthly-contributor-spotlight)
+
+### CPC and Board Meeting Updates
+
+*Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+* No updates this week.
+
+### nodejs/node
+
+* test: improve zlib tests [#55716](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/55716)
+  * Rafael, changes are requested as test is change to use node test instead of current workflow
+  * Robert, key question is if we should re-write all of our tests with Node.js test runner
+    * Rafael, believe discussion was that is ok use node test, but not necessarily a requirement
+    * Rafael, discussion should continue in the process
+    * Michael, believe in the collaborator summit, code and learn had people moving tests over to node test.
+    * Robert, true, but some collabs were against, so was a task people could work on, might not be landed. The question is what is the value?
+  * Matteo, my take is that we are ok with using Node test for internal tests for anything that is
+    not used by node test, would have to list out it’s dependencies and those should not be used
+  * Michael, that seems to mean that we need 2 test frameworks, and is it really worth it?
+  * Matteo, in a lot of places we have multiple tests running in parallel in the same file, tests
+    have a mini-test framework built into a single test file. Either split into files or use the test harness
+  * Rafael, should probably also  assess performance
+  * Robert, there is also the high level objection which is to allow other platforms to run the Node.js tests.
+  * Rafael, existing tests depend on internals
+    * Michael don’t see how that relates to using test running or not
+  * Robert, going back to theoretical advantage to Node.js. If we could have common implementation with other runtimes.
+  * Chengzhong, my experience is that standard test suites use a vanilla test suite which is not tied to any runtime
+  * Michael, that aligns with what I would be thinking
+  * Robert, first question is if using the Node.js test suite is the right answer for the goal.
+  * Leave on the agenda for next week for maybe when we have James and/or Yagiz.
+
+* assert: add partialDeepStrictEqual [#54630](https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/54630)
+  * don’t have the right people skip until next mmeeting
+
+### nodejs/Release
+
+* Enforce a more strict policy for semver-major releases [#1054](https://github.com/nodejs/Release/issues/1054)
+  * Rafael, it has been merged.
+  * On every release, it is a challenge to merge SemVer majors so close to shipping a new major
+  * Policy documented to sync 1 month before, will no longer pull in SemVer majors after that point. Will allow time to run CITGM, assess, etc.
+
+### nodejs/nodejs.org
+
+* Add Vetted Courses [#7201](https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/issues/7201)
+  * Matteo, added for visibility
+    * Fundamental problem has been “how to learn Node.js” from a source which the project believes is up to date and current
+    * Now that we are onboarding Ambassadors, would be good to add links on the website to content for this from the Ambassadors that we have identified.
+    * We should also link to training from the Linux foundation as well
+    * Michael, maybe section on the website which is “content from our ambassadors”
+    * Rafael, should we include paid content ?
+    * Matteo, I think we should be able to include paid content as well, ok to provide a mix
+    * Rafael, how do we tell the courses are good
+
+* feat: add streams guide [#7123](https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.org/pull/7123)
+  * Matteo: How do we acknowledge original content
+    * In this example, the original authors are willing and supportive
+  * Michael: “This content was originally shared by Y in X” should be included
+  * Would be PR to collaborator guide in the website doc.
+
+### nodejs/TSC
+
+* Draft Statement of Work - Test flakiness lead [#1629](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1629)
+  * took off the agenda
+
+* Let's talk about the CI situation [#1614](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/1614)
+  * leave on agenda
+
+### nodejs/next-10
+
+* Ambassador program - message and topics for additional content [#302](https://github.com/nodejs/next-10/issues/302)
+  * Next-10 team discussed and there will be more specific suggestions to consider through PRs so removing from agenda
+
+### nodejs/package-examples
+
+* Bootstrapping the initiative: TODOs? [#2](https://github.com/nodejs/package-examples/issues/2)
+  * leave on the agenda for next time when we might have Joyee.
+
+## Strategic Initiatives
+
+## Upcoming Meetings
+
+* **Node.js Project Calendar**: <https://nodejs.org/calendar>
+
+Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar.