diff --git a/meetings/2016-11-15.MD b/meetings/2016-11-15.MD
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..c211102
--- /dev/null
+++ b/meetings/2016-11-15.MD
@@ -0,0 +1,45 @@
+
+## Attendees
+
+- Jordan Harband @ljharb
+- William Kapke @williamkapke
+- Myles Borins @TheAlphaNerd
+- Jeremiah Senkpiel @Fishrock123
+- Corey Butler @coreybutler
+- Chris Brody @brodybits
+- Marcel Klehr @marcelklehr
+- George Adams @???
+- Jason Ginchereau @jasongin
+
+## Notes
+
+Jordan started by talking about adoption of nvm into Node foundation as being separate from the longer-term WG goal.
+
+- Myles, while supportive, was trying to better understand Jordan's reasons. Jordan's answers included: governance 
+  (so the project's survival doesn't rely on a single maintainer), licensing support, testing infrastructure.
+- Jeremiah relayed the TSC's conerns about a project joining the foundation only to stagnate/die. Jordan suggested 
+  it would still be better for a project (particularly one having a lot of users/infrastructure depending on it) 
+  to stagnate while under the foundation rather than not under it, and also suggested the foundation membership 
+  didn't have to be permanent: a project could be deprecated or removed after it was replaced by something newer.
+- Others were still concerned about the adoption leading to the perception of nvm being promoted as the "standard", 
+  even if that was explicitly not the intention.
+
+Corey and Myles suggested the WG should develop "standards" for all version management tools so they work in a consistent way.
+
+- (Think of the Promises/A+ spec that many JS promise libraries converged on.)
+- Marcel asked whether there's any benefit to having multiple tools if they are all implementing the same standard.
+- Jason pointed out standards would have to be limited in scope to avoid dictating specific switching mechanisms and thus 
+  excluding many tools.
+- Jordan thought that the standards could leave room for different tools to be better adapted to different platforms or 
+  scenarios.
+- There was some concern that standards (or version-switching in general) could not be implemented consistently across 
+  platforms, for example symlinks; Jason pointed out that is largely disproven by nvs.
+
+Jerimiah is interested in a GUI installer using a version manager or potentially selecting from multiple version managers.
+
+- It could replace the existing Windows (MSI) and Mac installers which are difficult to maintain.
+
+George and Chris promoted nvs as a potential solution/inspiration for a converged tool.
+
+- Jordan agreed nvs is closest being the best long-term design approach.
+- Jordan was concerned nvs's approach isn't suitable for some corner cases (and maybe no single tool could cover all of them).