Join the Node Foundation?

mikeal commented 9 years ago

All the documentation for the Node Foundation is ready:

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.

ghost commented 9 years ago

@mikeal that [https://github.com/iojs/io.js/issues/1664#issuecomment-100671965] explains my concerns about naming of future versions. I think @isaacs wrote a npm blog post about engine tags and naming of versions for node.js and io.js or other future supported platforms. Had a concern about clashing of version names. For me its clear now.

khaled-su commented 9 years ago

:thumbsup:

luke-john commented 9 years ago

@pensierinmusica we already did work out what is best for governance, that's how we got to io.js' governance model, which is now also the foundation's governance model.

Actually it's the TSCs governance model, the node foundation's governance model is something which has still not been released and was developed behind closed doors.

pensierinmusica commented 9 years ago

@mikeal and @luke-john, what I was trying to suggest is simply that if there are a few people within the iojs project, or at large in the community who have specific (this is a key word) doubts, these could be discussed on GitHub and treated as issues, as long as whoever criticizes also has an alternative concrete solution to propose. Who knows maybe there's still margin for improvement and keeping the process open, possibly with a time deadline to take final decisions, would lead to the best possible outcome.

More than anything, I'd like to thank everyone who's spending a considerable amount of time to make iojs and Node better every day. You guys rock!!

mikeal commented 9 years ago

@luke-john at the top of this issues you'll find links to all the related documentation and you'll also see in those repos months of public discussion. This process has been long and public, the first issue here pointing people at it was months ago and it has come up in pretty much every TC meeting in between.

Fishrock123 commented 9 years ago

@KenanSulayman

There's running infrastructure, an integrated process and release protocol which evolved quite a bit since inception of io.js.

The CI is user/repo agnostic

And the project should be independent from Joyent et al.

It already will be, other than their TSC member(s) (Julian, maybe TJ?)

Same thing with Walmart and the other companies that convoluted node into a lackluster stagnation.

Sorry, but all the companies you folks are quoting have been extremely helpful, and are employing wonderful people to work on core.

Node shall be free of enterprise corporatism and that super-ego of commercial self-gratification.

That's why we are making a non-profit. Also, this is large software. The simple fact is people need to be paid to work on this stuff as much as they do / is needed.

mikeal commented 9 years ago

It already will be, other than their TSC member(s) (Julian, maybe TJ?)

Julien will most definitely be on the TSC. TJ has decided to step away.

Node shall be free of enterprise corporatism and that super-ego of commercial self-gratification.

That's why we are making a non-profit. Also, this is large software. The simple fact is people need to be paid to work on this stuff as much as they do / is needed.

I would just add that we exist today because of a lot of support from a lot of companies. Nearly all the TSC members are paid by companies to work on io.js and all the hardware infrastructure is donated by companies.

Fishrock123 commented 9 years ago

all the hardware infrastructure is donated by companies.

Minus some ARM (rpi) resources I think? :)

mikeal commented 9 years ago

@Fishrock123 good point, those are donated by people and hosted in @rvagg's house :)

jfathman commented 9 years ago

Joining the foundation is not an irreversible decision, so why not give it a chance? The prospect of inciting a future Node (re)fork is probably sufficient to induce the moneyed participants to live up to their agreements. If it doesn't work out, io.js or successor can quickly reconvene and never look back.

yosuke-furukawa commented 9 years ago

:+1: for joining. I will support the Foundation and the community. And I like @jfathman 's idea. This decision is not irreversible.

BUT NG working group is not mentioned here.

We can discuss and post some request future features on NG WG. We should keep the WG for casual discussion. https://github.com/iojs/NG

NG WG does not merge to Node Foundation??

luke-john commented 9 years ago

@luke-john at the top of this issues you'll find links to all the related documentation and you'll also see in those repos months of public discussion.

@mikeal yep, I've seen all those. These are not the foundations governance, they are the governance of a sub-body (TSC) that the foundation has set up.

This process has been long and public, the first issue here pointing people at it was months ago and it has come up in pretty much every TC meeting in between.

When the issue came up previously you directed people to https://github.com/joyent/nodejs-advisory-board/pull/30 for concerns about Top Level governance. I asked about the actual foundations governance there.

Will the foundations bylaws be made public in the same way as the other draft documents for community feedback?

And now this reply is looking long. From the sounds of things there's not much interest in these being public so probably not a big deal. The TSCs governance is certainly looking good, so thanks to you and all the others who have worked to make this happen.

Fishrock123 commented 9 years ago

@yosuke-furukawa It was probably just missed, took me forever to realize we had NG.

jub3i commented 9 years ago

I should probably qualify my opinions and say that I'm an end user of iojs and not involved in core. Regardless, I have very much enjoyed following along with the process, even though I have found nothing to contribute... until now!

+1 on foundation, formalising the rules of the current 'system' of iojs and inviting anyone to join seems like a good idea - I'm sure/I hope that @mikeal has done a good job with the rules. What's the worst that can happen? another fork? ;)

On the topic of recorded meetings: It doesn't matter if the recordings get 0 views, I feel its not open governance unless the decision making process is open and potentially viewable by all. If you want to have private conversations, or talk before, during or after the meeting off the record that's just fine and normal. It would however be better if as much of the debate and decisions would be recorded, at minimum in audio and it doesn't have to be live - although that is cool. I don't see how an audio recording could harm anyone... people will make memes or autotune your voice, so what? That saying about 'how offence is taken not given comes to mind', and/or 'sticks and stones may break my bones but words will never harm me'. Being open about everything inside the project is what makes it great! It feels like stifling the openness and a major step back if the main TC meetings are not recorded. If things are out in the open, there is less chance of this wonderful thing called iojs becoming the corporate controlled monster we all fear.

mikeal commented 9 years ago

@yosuke-furukawa whoops, I forgot that one :/ Technically we never chartered NG and it doesn't have "members" yet. It's mostly a place for discussion but that might change soon.

No worries, we're moving the whole org so all the repos will go with it.

yosuke-furukawa commented 9 years ago

@Fishrock123 @mikeal Thank you! I will also support NG WG :D

indexzero commented 9 years ago

+1 nice to finally see a sane voting proposal on the table. :muscle:

therebelrobot commented 9 years ago

While I still have trepidation to going back within the arms of a brand/company that forced io.js out in the first place, I agree that the foundation and new governance model should alleviate the major issues, and after all, the core can always fork again if things don't work out (as stated above). When all that's in the way of possible progress is fear and uncertainty, and all sources of it have been addressed, it would be amiss to hold out support. I am cautiously optimistic of where the merge will take node as a whole.

tl;dr: +1 on the merge.

Fishrock123 commented 9 years ago

Also, if anyone missed it, here's a doc that has a pseudo-diff between current io.js dev policies and the proposed foundation dev policies: #1416

seeekr commented 9 years ago

Well, this actually sounds pretty good! Thanks for your significant efforts in conversation threads such as this one, @mikeal! I think that makes quite a difference if someone does their job as well as you do! +1 from me fwiw! (Just a io.js user from the first release, haven't contributed (yet) but actively following the development of io.js.)

mikeal commented 9 years ago

The vote happened in today's TC meeting. We are joining the Node Foundation :)

jasnell commented 9 years ago

:+1: :100:

pesho commented 9 years ago

Awesome :+1:

formula1 commented 9 years ago

I'm really suprised the group agreed though didn't get caught up with understanding what is going on. I realize that the charters are nearly identical and I was watching the node-iojs last week (which only had bert and mikeal) but it seemed to be a premature vote. I'm confident that everyone would agree to joining, however if a person decides without educating themselves on the topic, the vote isn't really that meaningful.

That being said, delays may only make things more difficult for the Node team. However, I was especially +1 because I thought everyone on iojs knew the details better than I did.

foxnewsnetwork commented 9 years ago

finally, it's happening :+1: Rand Paul It's Happening Oh es6 generators, how I've longed for you.

robotmayo commented 9 years ago

We did it!

sandstrom commented 9 years ago

Nice work! 1 + 1 = 3 I'm sure both sides will benefit from this!

drewhamlett commented 9 years ago

Does this mean we'll get Promises in core? giphy

syrnick commented 9 years ago

+1

nwhitmont commented 9 years ago

Great news everybody!

drewblaisdell commented 9 years ago

:+1:

abritinthebay commented 9 years ago

Could not be more happy about this.

benatkin commented 9 years ago

Awesome work @mikeal @node-forward @iojs. A lot of people didn't expect it, since the odds seemed stacked against you, but you followed through and achieved your goals!