Repository navigation
Join the Node Foundation? #1664
Description
All the documentation for the Node Foundation is ready:
- TSC Charter (Basic Governance)
- Development Policy
- Convergence Plan
- Project Lifecyle (Working Groups Definition)
- WG Merger (List of working groups and how they will be merged)
The gist of it is, the foundation's governance structure is nearly identical to io.js'. In fact, during the process of writing all this down we improved the documentation for most of these policies and made some improvements. The new "converged" node project will begin with io.js master and port changes from node.js in for its first release target.
I wrote an extensive piece on why I think we need a foundation, and why I think the structure the Linux Foundation has setup for the Node Foundation is ideal.
It's now time to make a real decision about moving io.js in to the foundation and, eventually, merging with node.js.
Once we've committed to this we would:
- Rename the GitHub org to "node" or "node-foundation" or whatever.
- Continue releasing io.js while the convergence work is happening.
- Move the TC calls to be TSC calls with the entirety of the TSC (we may have to switch to GoToMeeting because of the size)
- Move the node-convergence repo to the new org as "node"
There's obviously going to be a lot of technical work after that continuing to release io.js until a converged release is ready, targeting the new repo for additional automation, etc, but the immediate steps would be the ones I've outlined above.
For the Working Groups, they would continue to do things as io.js (although the org is renamed) until they have access to the appropriate node.js assets and they decide as a WG to shift their focus.
PS. As a point of process, Working Groups are autonomous, so if the TSC decides to move io.js to the Node Foundation but a WG, for whatever reason, declines they would have to be moved out of the foundation org after the move. This is just a limitation of having to move the org.
Activity
affinity-matrix commentedon May 8, 2015
👍 I am still reading through all of the details, but this looks very sensible and well thought out. Thank you for this.
I am in support.
benjamingr commentedon May 9, 2015
If this is going to work it's going to be amazing. We want to make sure as few users as possible have their projects broken during the transition.
voodootikigod commentedon May 9, 2015
Yes. This should be done.
djensen47 commentedon May 9, 2015
👍
Qard commentedon May 9, 2015
👍 from me.
On May 8, 2015 5:30 PM, "Dave Jensen" notifications@github.com wrote:
LongLiveCHIEF commentedon May 9, 2015
+1
aheckmann commentedon May 9, 2015
👍
aredridel commentedon May 9, 2015
So far, big 👍
Planeshifter commentedon May 9, 2015
👍
cjihrig commentedon May 9, 2015
👍 I think this is best for everyone.
luke-john commentedon May 9, 2015
Hey, so whilst the TSC Charter looks pretty good, the actual foundation charter/bylaws are still nowhere public that I've been able to find.
Shouldn't they be available to consider before people vote on joining this foundation?
mscdex commentedon May 9, 2015
This may sound nit-picky, but IMHO it'd be best if we could stay with a live TSC meeting stream, even if it's not youtube. The live stream allows people to join IRC and ask questions during and at the end of the meeting. Even though there haven't been that many questions at the TC meetings yet, if we publicized this "feature" more, I think we might get more questions?
affinity-matrix commentedon May 9, 2015
While I laud the effort to make things as transparent as possible, I think it's unnecessary (possibly harmful) to require that every TSC member be willing to be subject to a live stream every time there is a meeting to be had.
I believe maintaining minutes should be more than sufficient.
mscdex commentedon May 9, 2015
@emilyrose AFAIK the GotoMeetings are already being recorded, just like the TC meetings are archived on Youtube. The difference however is that GotoMeeting can't do live streaming (too).
176 remaining items
andrewdeandrade commentedon May 14, 2015
What's the expected timeframe on the codebase convergence and getting to 3.0?
I see @Fishrock123's pull request. Is there a todo list of what remains after that is merged in?
Lastly, what's the deal with migrating existing open issues from node.js/io.js to the new repo?
nickleefly commentedon May 14, 2015
👍
carloscheddar commentedon May 14, 2015
TooBug commentedon May 14, 2015
Thanks for all your efforts!
ericmdantas commentedon May 14, 2015
Great job, everyone!
karlbright commentedon May 14, 2015
Oh no! This means that the logo thread will come to an end!
Waterloo commentedon May 14, 2015
This is going to be awesome guys...
izolate commentedon May 14, 2015
Started to prefer the name io.js. In my mind, we should have just continued down this forked road.
Fishrock123 commentedon May 14, 2015
Thanks all. I'm going to limit this discussion to collaborators, but anyone is free to either email me (fishrock123@rocketmail.com) if they have a comment they'd really like to have here, or comment in irc or some other place.
Basically all issues that could be brought up have been brought up, and I'm sure you'd be able to either find them by searching, or ask a collaborator / tc member. :)
Fishrock123 commentedon May 14, 2015
As said, the new master will continue as things have in io.js
Ah, sadly yes. But we can always make a new thread for community node / io.js logos. Maybe we'll be able to open the node logo up to wider community interpretation and use. :)
Ah same (naturally, I did come up with it), but it will still live on as having a huge impact on node. :)
Fishrock123 commentedon May 14, 2015
@petergombos asked by email regarding #1664 (comment):
It could either be either be shorter or longer (weeks, maybe 1-2 months?), depending on what happens with the finer details. The current working copy of the merge can be found at https://github.com/jasnell/node.js-convergence, it’s pretty nitty-gritty though, and the work is still getting warmed up so there’s not too much to see yet.
Also, the websites need to merge so that a new node website can form with the same internationalization abilities as iojs.org currently has. Progress for this can currently be tracked at nodejs/iojs.org#350, this may also include an updated node branding in the future.
So again, weeks, maybe a month or two. The current node.js and io.js release lines will continue releasing while we work on this.
Assuming you mean nodejs/node-convergence-archive#7 ? Lots. These are only to update that repo to iojs/master. Still need to pull in the changes from node.
They will remain as is and we will continue to reference them as-is. io.js issue will remain relevant for sure, and I'll keep a tab on them as best as I can. :)
Again, anyone is free to email me (fishrock123@rocketmail.com), and I'll be happy to answer questions / respond to comments. :)
jasnell commentedon May 14, 2015
We're still compiling the actual todo list on the actual merges. It's a fairly nontrivial task.
Regarding the issues tracker, the existing issues db's in joyent/node and iojs/io.js will remain as they are, with a new starting-from-scratch issue db in the converged repo. It'll require a bit of coordination but having a new issue tracker was decided to be the least painful option.