nodejs · MylesBorins · Feb 20, 2019 · Feb 13, 2019 · Feb 13, 2019
diff --git a/doc/meetings/2019-01-30.md b/doc/meetings/2019-01-30.md
@@ -0,0 +1,106 @@
+# Node.js Foundation Modules Team Meeting 2019-01-30
+
+* **Recording**:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1YraH8GoHk
+* **GitHub Issue**: https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/258
+* **Minutes Google Doc**: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yx4k1syLuMU_98sa2ASu3mgXSJ4-9Lac8uWzqIlEoYc/edit
+
+## Present
+
+- Saleh Abdel Motaal (@smotaal)
+- Myles Borins (@MylesBorins)
+- Geoffrey Booth (@GeoffreyBooth)
+- Matt DuLeone (@mduleone)
+- Wesley Wigham (@weswigham)
+- Jan Krems (@jkrems)
+- Guy Bedford (@guybedford)
+- Michael Zasso (@targos)
+- John-David Dalton (@jdalton)
+- Gus Caplan (@devsnek)
+- Hassan Sani (@inidaname)
+- Daniel Rosenwasser (@DanielRosenwasser)
+- Ahmad Abdul-Aziz (@devamaz)
+- Jordan Harband (@ljharb)
+
+## Agenda
+
+Extracted from **modules-agenda** labelled issues and pull requests from the **nodejs org** prior to the meeting.
+
+### Announcements 
+
+* --eval, STDIN, and extensionless files [#251](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/pull/251)
+
+Please express interest in the thread
+
+### Discussion
+
+* Slack channel [#249](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/pull/249)
+  - 5 minute timebox
+* Dynamic Modules Development in Node.js [#24894](https://github.com/nodejs/node/issues/24894)
+  - 15 minute timebox
+  - Guy: briefly went through the change
+    - Was some resistance from Till
+    - Some concern about whether dynamic modules loosen certain invariants
+    - Have been promises from TC39 over the years that these issues would be worked on, but there's not necessarily any implementation feedback except that there could potentially be a spec exception to "here's how this is allowed to work"
+  - Brad
+    - Domenic Denicola and AWB were not able to attend, so they weren't present to object, but they have raised concerns over GitHub.
+    - The "forbids" clause over other implementations seems like it could alleviate certain concerns.
+     - AWB is concerned around existing invariants, Domenic wants to have a separate web standard and a specific behavior for Node.
+  - Myles: This probably won't happen today. It probably won't happen quickly if it does.
+ It feels like it may not happen.
+  - JDD: I have a sunnier disposition. Sounds like there might be a path here.
+    - Daniel: Same. Really sounded like Till's concern was about browsers taking on the "exceptional' behavior.
+  - Brad: Ben Newman from Meteor sounded like the current design was incomplete.
+  - Myles: May need to come up with a come up with something by the March meeting
+  - Saleh: need to have a parallel approach that can defer to a JS polyfill.
+    - Myles: I don't think the concern is implementation, just about consensus and staying conformant with the spec
+    - Guy: Node doesn't generally add its own functionality to V8, and keeping any sort of implementation synced with V8 might be a pain.
+  - Jeff: Can't have interop without planning for it.
+  - Brad: Saying "no ESM interop" could keep things open and work towards it, and use a loader otherwise.
+  - JDD: What's the future look like if it doesn't happen?
+    - Myles: fill this in
+  - Jordan: Trying to lock down a design in the next 2 months out of a sense of urgency is probably not the right way to go about this.
+* Minimum to release? [#253](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/253)
+  - 15 minute timebox
+  - Myles: Cut Node 12 in April - any semantically versioned changes need to go in by mid-March
+    - the only thing that would need to go in is the new "package fields" proposals
+    - but the longer it sits and stuff touches it, the harder it is to modify/remove
+  - Myles: We need to ship something. We have decision paralysis.
+    - Joke - we wanted to avoid a Python 2/Python 3 decision, but in the time it took to decide all this, Python has fixed their ecosystem
+    - Provide named exports in April if we can; if not, don't provide transparent interop.
+    - Figuring out file extensions and IRP proposals seem like they could be done, but must be done.
+  - Saleh: shouldn't take away experimental features that would otherwise be useful due to issues around risk
+  - JDD: We give people explicit warranties not to use experimental stuff!
+  - Jordan: people have to learn their lesson with breaking changes - they shouldn't be relied on.
+  - Guy: Having the capability with an experimental loader hook, you'd be able to generally address the broader concerns including interop.
+  - Myles: things we need to tackle
+      - \[\[Fill this in]]
+      - file specifier resolution
+    - Missing features
+      - loaders & VM
+        - If we copied over the minimal kernel as it exists today, we'd lose functionality for putting ES modules in VM. Is that a blocker?
+             - Gus: they're a separate feature, it should be fine to merge in both
+          - Jans: At least from what I remember, the VM module leaked a lot of information about how modules work. Keeping the VM module in the minimal kernel would actually restrict our design space.
+          - Jeff: adding a list to the required features, there's things like entry points.
+  - Myles: Realms are probably coming eventually - the truly perfect solution to VM modules would be realms.
+    - Brad: Realms don't let you create new modules. The APIs are *very* different as well.
+      - Myles: but can the same things achievable in Realms?
+        - Brad: largely, yes
+  - Myles: so what if we ship vm as deprecated the same way domains are? Would that be fine?
+    - Jans: it's always a known unknown.
+    - Myles: can you work on this between now and when we want to ship?
+    - Jans: sure
+  - Myles: can we just flag vm module support? seems like it's not blocking
+  - Action item: Myles to come up with a list of blocking and non-blocking issues
+  - Saleh: could imagine an experimental module loader that tries to achieve the same things as vm.
+
+* WIP \[Do not merge\] - Irp type modules [#29](https://github.com/nodejs/ecmascript-modules/pull/28)
+  - 15 minute timebox
+  - Refs:
+    - Mode: esm proposal [#247](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/247)
+
+
+
+* Import file specifier proposal implementation [#256](https://github.com/nodejs/modules/issues/256)
+  - 5 minute timebox
+
+Can land if we have consensus by next wednesday