Session Proposal: Node.js PMWG & Version Management Working Session #400
Comments
wesleytodd
added
Collaborator Summit
Session Proposal
|
I would love to call into this if a video link can be made available, and at a time that’s reasonable for US Pacific (so as late in the day/evening as possible ideally). |
|
we should pb ask for a 2 hour block, I don't think 1h will be enough to make meaningful progress. |
|
Updated to 2h. |
|
So for the agenda, I was thinking something like this (assuming we do 2 hours):
Thoughts on this? |
|
|
|
We plan to make it the last session of the first day of the summit (April 3). We should start leaving around 17:00 London time (procrastinating a bit is okay but for security reasons we can't stay later than 18:00). So looking at 15:15-17:00 with some break time in between. |
|
Will we have all the setup in the room for streaming and remote participation or do we need to prepare to run that as the facilitators? |
|
Still need to figure it out. Current plan is to use Zoom (preferably the OpenJSF account), and we should have some microphones in the room, both people in the room and remote folks use Zoom to raise hands and we speak in turns. |
|
Streaming probably won't happen because of regulations (GDPR or something like that, those who appear on camera may also need to sign a form to give consent for the recording, or they should try to avoid the camera), but joining via Zoom is open. |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
|
Maybe this can happen in the session, but I think it might help if beforehand each of the attendees can write down a list of use cases or problems they want solved? With more specificity than a vague notion like “Improve the experience of Yarn users.” I feel like part of the problem we’re facing is that we don’t have agreed-upon goals, so having a bunch of lists of what each person wants to achieve and seeing the common themes there might help us in finding that consensus. In particular, I just don’t know what to do with requests like nodejs/node#51981 (comment) and nodejs/node#51981 (comment) that ask for a Corepack alternative without specifying either what’s wrong with Corepack or what they would prefer instead. A new Corepack . . . that’s better! 😄 I feel like the alignment of goals is by far the most important thing that needs to happen; implementation can happen async over time. |
Agreed! I was hoping by having it start with brainstorming goals we would be better setup to have the deep discussions. If you think pre-work would help I am down, but I am not sure how reliable asking folks to do that will be.
Yeah, lol, I have been a bit guilty of this myself. I have referenced a replacement without any specification on what that could even mean. I was going to write up a formal document on the session (hopefully tomorrow morning) and think adding this stuff would be good. |
|
I sketched out one possible alternative here: nodejs/package-maintenance#591 (comment) For the use cases of:
With the intended goals of:
|
I didn't read those comments as asking for a corepack alternative. It seems more likely that they're asking for corepack to not be removed because there is no alternative. This isn't a statement that there's something wrong with corepack. |
Agreed those statements are not. The answers to "why not corepack" are in the threads in there. That said, I think the goal of this session is to get to the bottom of that question in a more approachable way for folks who were not able to read the pages and pages of comments across multiple issues and 4 years on this topic. Anyway, I don't think we should litigate the topic in the planning thread here, so please lets keep this to planning the sessions goals and structure. |
|
For the remote participants: we've scheduled Zoom Webinars for the sessions, please register using the links provided in #387 and you'll get a link in an email to join the sessions. More info in the issue mentioned. |
|
You can also get invited to be a panelist beforehand to save the registration & promotion step. Ping in the OpenJS slack with your email or send a email to the email in my GitHub profile to get an invitation. |
TimeUTC Wed 03-Apr-2024 15:00 (03:00 PM):
Or in your local time: |
|
BTW I just noticed that the comment above #400 (comment) gave incorrect times (we were using London time, not UTC, which had a 1 hour difference) and that was probably why some people missed the first hour of the session. |
|
Closing as the session has ended. Links to the recordings:
Links to the notes (very inaccurate, we should try harder at getting dedicated note takers the next time): Drafted trip report, would appreciate some reviews. Expect to publish on the official blog next week: https://hackmd.io/5vvP8o5bTmqcbNh-3oHpag |
Proposal
Topic of the session
Working session for the Node.js Package Maintenance Working Group to advance discussions around version management tools within Node.js. This includes discussion of
corepackscope, as well as alternatives, more official documentation for the relationship with npm and chartering the group for ownership of this domain.Type of the session
Estimated duration of the session
1 hour (open for discussion, might need longer?)
Date and Time of the session
Level
Pre-requisite knowledge
Describe the session
We will start with a re-cap of the history of discussions around shipping a version manager for node, corepack and npm, and the current discussions around the contentious topic. After that we will discuss goals for a proposed version manager for both Node.js and package managers. Lastly we will attempt to arrive at a decision if chartering the PMWG to own this domain is a good path forward.
Session facilitator(s), Github handle(s) and timezone(s)
@wesleytodd
@aduh95
@ruyadorno
Meeting notes and Virtual Meeting Link
Follow-up / Set-up sessions (if any)
Additional context (optional)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: