nodejs · Trott · Apr 2, 2018 · Mar 30, 2018 · Mar 30, 2018 · Apr 1, 2018
diff --git a/meetings/node.js/2018-03-14.md → meetings/2018-03-14.md b/meetings/node.js/2018-03-14.md → meetings/2018-03-14.md
diff --git a/meetings/2018-03-21.md b/meetings/2018-03-21.md
@@ -0,0 +1,123 @@
+# Node.js Foundation Technical Steering Committee (TSC) Meeting 2018-03-21
+
+## Links
+
+* **Recording**:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ9Fs_qMuZQ
+* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/511
+
+## Present
+
+* Anna Henningsen @addaleax (TSC)
+* Сковорода Никита Андреевич @ChALkeR (TSC)
+* Colin Ihrig @cjihrig (TSC)
+* Daniel Bevenius @danbev (TSC)
+* Evan Lucas @evanlucas (TSC)
+* Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123 (TSC)
+* Gibson Fahnestock @gibfahn (TSC)
+* James M Snell @jasnell (TSC)
+* Matteo Collina @mcollina (TSC)
+* Michael Dawson @mhdawson (TSC)
+* Ali Ijaz Sheikh @ofrobots (TSC)
+* Rod Vagg @rvagg (TSC)
+* Trevor Norris @trevnorris (TSC)
+* Rich Trott @Trott (TSC)
+
+* Mathias Buus Madsen @mafintosh (observer)
+
+## Agenda
+
+### Announcements
+
+* If you are a member of the Node.js GitHub org and are interested in participating in on-call rotation for the Moderation Team, please indicate so in issue 183 in the moderation repo.
+
+*Extracted from **tsc-agenda** labeled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+### nodejs/node
+
+* Collaborator nomination @BethGriggs [#19376](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/19376)
+* Tracking Issue for Runtime Deprecation of Buffer constructor [#19079](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/19079)
+  * Rich - wants to get a feel on where people are on this issue.  Seems like there are at least two people who have semi-privately indicated that they have changed their position.
+  * James - not so much in favor any more. Not much time left. Prefer not to land for 10.0.0. 
+    let's evaluate before it goes lts
+  * Rich - query other people who did not participate.
+  * Jeremiah does not have strong feelings.
+  * Michael seems to be no longer in favor either.
+  * Nikita: By the time 11 comes along, things would be even worse.
+  * James, it around how do we encourage people to make the required updates
+  * Rod: with zero fill is it as urgent as it might have been.
+  * Nikita, can we discuss separately in modules and in their dependencies
+  * James: we need a better way to handle deprecations.  Need a more effective solution
+    wants to separate decision on buffer and finding a better way to do deprecations.
+  * Anna, suggest we don’t do anything in 10, but then do deprecation in top level code in master   
+    but not in dependencies,  as a first step. 
+  * Rod, maybe if we say the plan is to do it in 11 that will help ensure people start working
+    on updating.
+  * Mathias, large number of modules which may just never get updated.  Do we want the
+    warning to be there for a long time.  
+  * James: There is code in browserify where code is dynamically generated. These will be hard
+    to find/fix.
+  * Nikita, not likely that many modules that do it, should not be that hard to fix.
+  * Rich: npm has been great with working with us on abandoned modules.
+  * Rod: do we still think the polyfill is even needed anymore?  
+  * James: some modules are written to run in browser and those do need it.
+  * Mathias: problem of dependencies on older major, so can for update across major versions.
+    Not as trivial as just updating code.
+  * Rod: challenge is that we are not seeing decreasing usage, so if we believe we need to get
+    rid of it we need to get to decreasing coverage.
+  * James, as an example there is twitter discussion that its ok to use it safely.
+  * Anna, having good high level discussion that we should continue, but we should have a
+    decision out of this meeting for this particular deprecation. 
+  * James, not inclined to land as has been running with it enabled in preparation of landing in 10
+    and it is very disruptive.
+  * Nikita, suggestions in github repo, deperate on use of buffer constructor outside of 
+    modules/deps.  You will only see warning if it is in your own code.
+  * Michael does that mean that only devs would see them while working on their code?
+  * Nikita, would see also for globally installed tools 
+  * Rich, everything he has seen is stuff that is in the modules as opposed to the CLI code
+  * Mathias, seems like an ok way forward.  Main question is how to stop people from publishing
+    new code. So seems like a good approach.
+  * Rich read out question.  Approach sounds good, but then how we will get to the point were
+    We can remove the constructor.  Though pending deprecation flag hopefully we an to our 
+    collaborators to identify and help fix.
+  * Nikita, plan would be to land waning for user code not in node modules for 10
+    working helping fix existing modules, then reconsidering for 11.
+  * Anna, more comfortable not doing in 10 since we’ve never done something like
+    that, but will not block. 
+  * Anna, willing to open the PR today.  
+  * Any objections to landing runtime deprecation that only prints for code outside node_modules
+    in 10.
+* Rich will update issue with decision made and cc TSC so those not here are aware.
+
+### nodejs/TSC
+
+* Tracking issue for updating TSC on Board Meetings [#476](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/476)
+
+* Strategic Initiatives - Tracking Issue [#423](https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/issues/423)
+
+  * N-API - PR to make stable landed
+    * Seems to have spurred additional activity, issues being reported and they are being worked.
+  * Anna - workers, has started pulling over code to shutdown but having issues on windows.
+  * James, would be good to have more review/comments on http2 in terms of criteria for
+     exiting experimental.
+
+### nodejs/admin
+
+* Travel Fund approval and being careful about funds available [#99](https://github.com/nodejs/admin/issues/99)
+  * Matteo, can we ask somebody from the foundation to help manage?
+  * Michael, if we don’t get a volunteer from CommComm then we should see if that is an option
+  * James, funds have to be allocated in advance.  We should not commit to money we have not 
+     allocated.
+
+## Meeting Times
+
+* proposal move next meeting to 16 UTC, instead of current time.  For the others will continue 
+  discussion in email.  
+* Michael send out email on TSC email list saying we are moving as an opportunity to raise a 
+  concern
+
+
+## Upcoming Meetings
+
+* **Node.js Foundation Calendar**: https://nodejs.org/calendar
+
+Click `+GoogleCalendar` at the bottom right to add to your own Google calendar.