new repo and/or team request: tools

[boneskull]

@bcoe, @bengl and myself (and anyone else who is interested--let me know!) are working to improve the experience for those writing tools in Node.js. This effort arose out of the User Feedback Initiative.

Currently, we have some initiatives written up in the User Feedback Initiative repo. One of these intiatives, ("mkdir -p") was recently merged (nodejs/node#21875). Ideas have been gathered in nodejs/user-feedback#59, but the user feedback repo isn't an appropriate venue for more focused discussions.

So...

• We would like a public repo for discussion and definition of initatives scoped to this effort.
• We plan on meeting regularly (though we have yet to create a schedule) as a nascent, unofficial working group, and would like to broadcast meetings from the official Node.js account on YouTube Live.
• We would like a team to which "@" notifications can be sent.

---

cc @iarna and @evocateur who have expressed interest in helping
cc @mcollina because he likes the initiatives 😄
cc @mhdawson because I asked him about this yesterday

[refack]

I would be happy to join.

IMHO if the repo is targeted around discussion, maybe a more specific name might be better suited (downstream-tools / userland-tools / tools-discus / tools-feedback).

P.S. We have several tools who dogfood under @nodejs/automation, @nodejs/build and @nodejs/documentation

[evocateur]

Happy to join as well.

[boneskull]

Regarding the name...

@refack To me, downstream-tools or userland-tools sound like somebody else's problem. 😉 -discuss or -feedback imposes more limits on the scope than I think are necessary at this point.

tools or tooling would be ideal. tooling-group or tools-group would also work, though both are verbose.

[mcollina]

I'm happy to help!

@boneskull I think we need a way to differentiate between the tools that Node.js core uses and the ones that could be built on top of Node.

@nodejs/tsc I can act as a champion in our strategic initiatives (see https://github.com/nodejs/TSC/blob/master/Strategic-Initiatives.md).

[boneskull]

@mcollina The differentiation could come in the form of a repo description and/or README. It's not always clear--maybe even rarely clear--the purpose of any given repo by its name alone. I'm not too terribly bothered by seemingly-similar repo names. In isolation, most of the repo names in the nodejs org don't give too many hints about their purpose!

(If anything is to be done here, let's adopt a repo naming convention for both working groups and actual tools the project uses. Or throw all the tools in a monorepo 😝! In some ways this is actually a GitHub problem, since we can't subdivide the org...)

...ahem..

What I'm trying to avoid is presenting this as something "other than" or "apart from" Node.js core. It's not about building userland tools--it's about building a better Node core for those who choose to build userland tools.

Maybe it sounds like splitting hairs... but really, I'm cool with any name that is consistent with this idea.

[Trott]

I'm fine with the name as is. We can always change it later if someone comes up with a better name. (There's certainly precedence for that. My node.git directory on my computer is named io.js because the repo used to be named something else. 😄 )

[Trott]

(Just in case it's not clear: +1 from me.)

[refack]

tooling

I like tooling. It succinct, and and to me does not imply there's a bunch of tools inside.

In anyway I'm +1, and leave the final work WRT the name bikeshedding to the OP.

[refack]

Maybe what I'm missing as well is a slightly more focused definition of what "tools" are. I'm assuming CLI apps, but maybe that's too narrow...

[bnb]

I would ❤️ to participate in this.

[obensource]

I'd love to help–count me in! 👋

[Bamieh]

I would love to help as well

[bnb]

Maybe what I'm missing as well is a slightly more focused definition of what "tools" are. I'm assuming CLI apps, but maybe that's too narrow...

@refack I'd assume CLI tools for sure are a part of this, but one of the referenced things is mkdirp which is a dead-simple module. I think the definition is probably much more broad. For example, I'd personally consider both Probot and Package Phobia "tools for Node.js". Probot is a module to interface with GitHub Apps directly, while Package Phobia teeters on the edge of useful for end-users/useful for developers – but I'd still consider it a tool for Node.js.

Of course @boneskull's, @bcoe's, and @bengl's definitions may vary 😄

[mcollina]

I'm tagging this tsc-agenda, I think we can move forward.

[boneskull]

@bnb Yeah, that's fair. CLI apps are the major driver though.

The mkdirp PR came from the need for CLI apps to do this sort of thing quite often (think scaffolding tools). The initiatives won't necessarily be CLI-specific, but I imagine some will be much less useful for deployed services, cloud functions, etc.

[watson]

I'm interested in helping out as well

[mhdawson]

+1 its great to see this happen. Also my 2cents. A bit verbose but maybe "tools-for-nodejs" as the repo name ?

[mhdawson]

@nodejs/tsc @nodejs/community-committee ping as I believe the process for a new repo is (from https://github.com/nodejs/admin/blob/master/GITHUB_ORG_MANGEMENT_POLICY.md):

Provided there are no objections from any TSC or CommComm members raised in the issue, such requests are approved automatically after 72 hours. If any objection is made, the request may be moved to a vote in each of the Technical Steering and Community Committees. If either the TSC or CommComm rejects the request, then the request is denied.

In certain cases, Node.js Foundation Board of Directors approval may also be required.

So unless there are objections to the creation of the new repo can simply move forward. I suggest we just wait 72hrs from this ping ( I don't believe this falls into the case were we need to involve the board)

[mhdawson]

One more suggestion for the name 'tooling-support-wg'

[richardlau]

One more suggestion for the name 'tooling-support-wg'

I wouldn't want to name something -wg unless it actually is, or is likely to become, an actual working group. Maybe this will become one, but at the moment it's proposed as "new repo and/or team".

[mhdawson]

@richardlau true, but we do have the security-wg which was only chartered after quite a while.

[boneskull]

tool-aid 😉

[boneskull]

@mhdawson @richardlau we can be clear about being non-chartered in the README, if that's helpful.

That said, this effort may or may not become a chartered WG at some point. The future is hazy...

I would like to avoid support in the name (no tool support!! use SO!!), or userland, downstream, or ecosystem for reasons I've mentioned above.

Names, in order of my preference:

1. tooling
2. tooling-wg
3. tooling-group
4. tool-aid 😎

If anyone objects to tooling, please move to next one. 72h after no objections, then sounds like we can create it. Thank you everyone!

[Trott]

I'm not going to stand in the way of it or anything, but I'd avoid -wg in the name as it will inevitably cause confusion about chartered vs not-chartered. We have enough of that confusion already and we should take steps to reduce that.

Also, wg is an abbreviation that is clear to us but not necessarily to people unfamiliar with the project. Another reason to avoid it.

[Bamieh]

I'd vote for tooling mainly because it is the most generic yet clearly reflects the intent of the group.

[mhdawson]

This can proceed.

[mcollina]

Repo created, https://github.com/nodejs/tooling! It's an empty scaffold :).
I've added @boneskull, @bcoe, @bengl, @bnb and @evocateur.