Roadmap WG status

[williamkapke]

Does Roadmap still need a WG?

Roles defined by their charter are:

• Attract and summarize user community needs and feedback.
• Find or potentially create tools that allow for broader participation.
• Create Pull Requests for relevant changes to ROADMAP.md

The members are: @mikeal, @piscisaureus, @chrisdickinson, @bnb

2 Topics discussed this year:

• Should Node.js be VM neutral in the future?
• Building node as a shared library instead of an executable

---

I think these responsibilities can be handled by the CTC and a WG isn't needed. I hope this doesn't rub anyone the wrong way- but there has been a lot of discussion lately about what can be done to ensure there are "active contributing individuals"... but in some cases, there isn't enough activity to determine this. Additionally, without activity- how would NEW members ever get involved?

[bnb]

I agree - the Roadmap could be defined by the CTC, and then built/designed/messaged by either individual members or @nodejs/evangelism. I would have posited that the Roadmap WG was a more open-to-the-community version of the CTC, but that's probably not a good interpretation of it.

Also, of course, almost no activity leaves a debt in the organization and can lead to confusion AND disinterest ("Their Roadmap WG is 'dead'? No thanks.") for new people coming in.

[jasnell]

I'm +1 on de-chartering it and folding those responsibilities back into the CTC.

[mhdawson]

+1 from me as well. CTC should be defining/setting Roadmap.

[Fishrock123]

This should be part of the CTC and/or TSC.

In fact, it sounds a lot like node-eps.

[evanlucas]

I think that it makes sense for the CTC to be responsible for the roadmap

[ChALkeR]

Yes, +1 for merging its responsibilities back into the CTC.

[mikeal]

The scope of the Roadmap WG was never to set the roadmap, it was to solicit feedback from the broader community to inform the roadmap and to communicate the final roadmap more widely.

We still periodically use the repo for breaking off larger meta issues and getting feedback on them.

The CTC traditionally has not been great at gathering feedback directly from the broader community and has enough responsibility just dealing with the feedback and perspective of 90+ core committers.

That said, today we tend to break off tasks like this into repos and not charter them as full WGs. The fact that there is a formal charter is more of a historical artifact as this WG predates the foundation and was started in the io.js days.

[williamkapke]

Can someone add the ctc-agenda label get it on the agenda, vote to de-charter it, and turn it in to a regular repo/team.

If the vote passes, I volunteer to do PRs to:

• the Roadmap repo updating the README.md
• the website to update the Working Groups list.
• the Node repo's WORKING_GROUPS.md
• ... anything I missed?

[mhdawson]

Added the ctc-agenda tag

[Trott]

+1 from me too.

That's 6 CTC members who are in favor of this so far and none opposed.

The six are: @jasnell, @mhdawson, @Fishrock123 @ChALkeR @evanlucas @Trott

If we can get four more @nodejs/ctc folks to +1 it, then it's approved.

[williamkapke]

@Trott , alternatively- the WG members can close it out on their own. Which just leaves @piscisaureus and @chrisdickinson to give the approval.

[piscisaureus]

Hereby: +1

[Fishrock123]

This never made sense to me, so +1 for dissolving it.

Edit: Looks like I don't have permissions to actually do that, so +1 on revoking it? Is that how this is done?

[MylesBorins]

LGTM +1

[addaleax]

LGTM

[cjihrig]

LGTM

[thefourtheye]

LGTM

[bnoordhuis]

LGTM. I didn't even know the Roadmap WG was a thing.

[ChALkeR]

This was discussed on the CTC meeting and moved back to collecting more votes on GitHub.

Removing the ctc-agenda label.

Also, I believe that we have enough votes now, if @Trott calculations are correct.

[Trott]

Also, I believe that we have enough votes now, if @Trott calculations are correct.

I see 12 LGTMs by current CTC members, so yeah, I would say do it!

Not sure if there's anything to actually do. We don't want to archive the roadmap repo, do we? But we probably want to prevent people from opening issues in it and direct them to a better place to read about Node.js's future or open issues. Maybe put a note in the README for that repo? Also not sure what (if anything) to do about @nodejs/roadmap. Keep it around? Get rid of it? ¯_(ツ)_/¯