►
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
Okay,
so
welcome
to
the
nodejs
community
and
JavaScript
JavaScript
community
bootstrap
team
meeting
for
January
2019
January
28
2009
team.
We
have
the
agenda
as
per
issue
number,
actually
just
get.
That
is
issue
number
20
86.
If
people
want
to
follow
along
in
terms
of
our
agenda,
we'll
start
out
with
the
first
section,
which
is
a
discussion
on
individual
membership.
We
have
about
a
25
minute
time
box.
B
Timing
and
we've
still
I
think
from
I
haven't
seen
from
a
stage
their
perspective.
Anybody
like
outright
objecting
to
the
notion
of
these
things
existing
so
I
think
that
means
that
we
can
move
to
stage
one
and
fold
in
some
of
the
suggestions
just
to
be
a
little
more
explicit
or
that
we
can
actually
remove
some
detail,
because
it's
potential
future
planning
that
doesn't
necessarily
need
to
be
in
this
proposal
and
I.
Think
a
few
things
to
call
out
that
I
would
love.
I
could
probably
call
them
out
as
comments
themselves.
B
I
would
love
your
feedback
on
it's
two
things.
One
is
brought
to
my
attention
and
that
we
haven't
had
a
lot
of
discussion
there,
folks
in
the
jsf
projects,
about
whether
this
makes
sense
and
whether
they
wanted
to
also
apply
like
to
a
foundation
overall,
because
this
was
something
that
we
had
prior
in
the
node
foundation
and
I.
You
know
took
the
proposal
we'd
been
working
on
for
the
last
year
through
research
and
whatnot
and
history
and
applied
it
here.
You
can
hold
project
in
this
proposal.
B
That
said,
it's
quite
possible
that
that
doesn't
make
sense
right.
It's
if
we
don't
all
want
it,
it
shouldn't
necessarily
need
to
apply
to
the
whole
projects
group
at
the
start.
If
other
people
think
that
it's
a
great
idea,
we
can
figure
that
out.
That's
how
we
should
do
moving
forward,
but
I
was
just.
B
It
was
brought
to
my
attention
that
I
should
not
assume
that
it
should
be
an
umbrella
projects,
membership
program
and
that
it
could
potentially
be
for
something
like
node
for
now
and
that,
as
another
project
comes
on,
we
work
from
there
instead
of
just
trying
to
junk
like
over
optimize.
I
think
the
idea.
C
B
And
then
the
second
is
that
a
detail
that
that
doesn't
really
get
called
out
in
this
proposal.
That
is
an
important
one,
is
that
in
node.
Currently
the
individual
membership
is
a
class
of
members,
so
there's
actually
like
legal
accountability
and
requirements
to
that
it
was
brought
up
that
that's
not
outside
of
our
group,
there's
a
sorry
outside
of
node
that
isn't
very
common
and
that
we
could
still
have
this
individual
membership
program
without
having
it
as
a
member
class.
B
So
I
have
some
opinions
on
that,
but
I
think
we
need
to
have
more
discussion
on
that.
Maybe
a
little
more
background,
because
I
do
think
that
that's
important
to
understand
so
that
we
can.
You
know,
chat
about
that
more
and
again,
if
it's
more
appropriate
to
talk
about
that
in
the
github
issue.
I'm
happy
to
just
add
a
comment
there
like
where
I
I
go
into
further
detail,
know
what
y'all's
feels
are
on
that
I
think.
A
We
have
the
time
box,
so
I
mean
I,
guess
on
the
firt,
your
first
question
about
more
feedback
from
the
GS
foundation.
Members
is
there
anybody
here
with
us
today
that
has
some
comments
on
that
front
and
like
I,
guess,
I
and
that
the
comments
and
then
what
would
be
the
next
steps
in
gathering
that
feedback
so.
D
I
raised
my
hand
and
just
to
chime
in
on
that
first
question:
I'm
Tracy:
this
is
story
and
so
are
I
think
on
the
face
of
it.
Our
projects
are
pretty
open
to
the
idea
of
there
being
an
individual
membership
program.
That's
not
an
objection
to
the
spirit
or
the
goals
of
it
in
any
way,
shape
or
form.
I.
Think
the
biggest
piece
of
of
concern
and
biggest
area
of
feedback
is
really
understanding.
B
B
So
it
wasn't
a
lot
say
like
from
what
I
remember
it
was
the
software
itself,
occasional
IT
and
I
actually
don't
know.
The
cost
of
the
software.
I
will
be
honest.
I
know
what
the
cost
of
the
software
is
moving
forward.
It's
approximately
twenty
six
hundred
dollars
a
year,
but
that
also
includes
an
election
program
which
would
be
helpful
to
the
project's
overall
and
wouldn't
just
be
for
the
individual
membership
program.
B
So
that's
elections
and
membership
management,
which
is
not
something
that
we
had
in
the
past,
which
was
actually
one
of
our
challenges.
So
the
individual
membership
program
and
note
one
of
the
big
challenges
was
not.
There
was
tooling
challenges
around
how
we
could
contact
and
communicate
with
the
members
of
the
program,
because
the
LF
respectfully
so
is
very
careful
about
who
has
access
to
emails.
B
B
D
Gonna
ask
as
a
follow-up,
and
would
you
what
percentage
of
your
time
and
and
I
guess
if
you
could
also
clarify,
were
you
doing
this
as
an
employee
of
the
foundation,
or
was
this
something
that
you
were
doing
like
in
your
open
source
time
as
a
volunteer,
but
what
percentage
of
your
time
what
this
represents?
We
can
really
get
a
sense
of
that
yeah.
B
That's
a
good
question
so
for
paid
time,
my
time
was
on
helping
facilitate
the
tooling
challenges
and
making
sure
that
that
stuff
was
working
and
coordinating
with
the
LF
IT.
The
open
source
time
was
I'm.
Sorry
that
was
that
was
a
lot
of
passive
time,
so
I
would
say
maybe
an
hour
to
a
week
like
not
a
lot,
because
it's
mostly
like
email
and
wait
on
things
the
except
for
when
the
tooling
went
south,
and
in
that
case,
I
was
doing
a
lot
of
things
manually.
B
That
will
not
happen
moving
forward,
because
that
we
don't
have
that
option
like
where
we
will
have
a
tool
system
in
case
in
order
for
the
membership
program
to
move
forward,
because
that's
just
like
it's
just
in
tenable
for
growing
a
larger
membership.
The
open-source
side
of
things.
That's
why
the
proposal
was
that
there
should
be
a
group
responsible
for
it
in
the
node
side,
when
we
were
writing
up
this
proposal,
the
community
committee
had
discussed
and
committed
to
being
okay
to
own
that
membership
program
and
understanding
that
there
was
work
to
be
done.
B
Moving
forward
to
make
it
better
to
continue
to
connect
with
the
folks
in
the
ecosystem
is
part
of
the
responsibilities
of
that
group.
This
would
then
be
passed
on
to
the
CPC
in
coordination
with
the
projects
who
are,
you
know,
excited
and
an
active
in
this
group,
so
that
should
be
that
part
of
the
work
should
be
distributed,
because
again,
the
employees
of
the
foundation
should
be
facilitators
in
coordination.
B
The
coordinators
of
the
work,
the
project
members
and
the
CPC
should
be
overseeing
like
the
feedback
mechanisms,
what
it
means
you
know
to
have
the
program,
how
to
make
it
better
those
sorts
of
things,
but
that
was
far
more
hours
in
trying
to
figure
that
out
and
fix
it.
But
that
wasn't
just
me
that
was
also
William
khaki
and
Ashley
Williams
and
the
other
community
representatives
and
trying
to
make
things
better
and.
B
B
B
B
So
what
we've
done
with
the
proposal
is
try
to
build
in
accountability
required
connection,
so
that
you
can
get
that
feedback
and
also
a
minimum
threshold.
If
you're
going
to
have
a
director
on
the
board,
the
idea
is
that
you
need
a
minimum
sample
in
order
to
have
like
with
feedback
right.
You
need
enough
people
to
be
sharing
that
information,
because
you
don't
want
it
to
just
be.
B
You
know
in
this
instance,
you
don't
want
to
have
a
membership
project,
an
individual
membership-
and
you
know
250
of
the
300
people
are
node,
and
so
everything
that
they're
getting
feedback
on
ends
up
only
you
know
benefiting
node
as
a
project
and
the
other
projects
sort
of
you
know
get
drowned
out
in
needs
because
we
have
data
to
back
it
up
when
the
data
is
not
actually
a
very
high
fidelity
rate.
Do
you.
D
B
That's
what
I
mean
my
hope
is
an
idea
even
with
node.
Was
that
when
done
well,
we
knew
that
node
is
not
in
a
vacuum
right,
it's
part
of
a
chain
and
we
needed
people
from
outside
of
the
project
to
be
chiming
in
and
feel
a
part
of
it
and
there's
other
ways
that
you
can
also
work
on
that.
But
we
believe
that
this
was
one
of
the
things
that
could
you
know,
help
pull
those
perspectives
in
and
I.
Think
other
things
like
you
know
the
modules
discussions
has
helped
with
that.
B
A
E
A
A
That
can
be
a
quite
a
large
amount
of
dollars,
and
even
if
you
are
it's
the
level
where
it's
like
you
think
about,
whereas
you
know
ten
dollars,
it's
we
didn't
want
to
be
zero
because
we
think
there's
some
sort
of
commitment.
But
it's
low
enough
that
if
you
have
an
interest,
that's
not
shouldn't
be
a
barrier
to
you.
I
I,.
D
B
The
comped
they
got
a
code
that
would
be
able
to
join
the
membership
for
free,
so
that
I
think
shows
you
how
little
value
people
perceived
the
membership
to
be
at
the
time,
because
we
had
failed
in
providing
good.
You
know
incentives
for
that,
because
we
had
way
more
than
300
collaborators
active
collaborators
in
the
project
and
even
for
free,
they
weren't
signing
up.
D
B
A
And
that
we
really
want
non
collaborators
to
be
the
individual
members,
it's
meant
to
be.
Like
a
you
know,
collaborators
we
were
already
have
engaged
it's
we
want
our
end.
Users
and-
and
people
who
were
interested
in
think
note-
is
important,
but
are
not
necessarily
as
tightly
tied
to
the
project
already.
D
And
part
of
their
program,
they
were
going
to
ask
people
apply
and
include
like
links
to
contributions
or
documentation
or
just
you
know,
some
provide
some
kind
of
evidence
that
they
were
in
some
way
connected
to
the
project
as
part
of
their
application.
And
but
it
sounds
like
you
know,
given
that
the
target
audience
isn't
necessarily
folks
who
are
already
active
participants,
but
those
we
might
want
to
encourage
to
become
active
participants
that
wouldn't
necessarily
be
a
good
idea.
So
yeah.
A
The
goal
of
getting
it
you
know
a
different
and
additional
perspective
from
people
who
may
not
work
on
the
project
day-to-day,
but
we're
using
node,
for
example,
in
their
applications.
If
there's
some
way,
we
can
get
their
feedback
and
they're.
You
know
they're
them
to
regularly
communicate
with
us
that
there's
you
in
it
on
that
front,.
D
And
so
you
know,
I
think
just
to
connect
it
back
to
the
the
main
question
and
I
think
the
J
estimation
writ
large
would
would
generally
support
this
being
a
stage
stage.
Zero
proposal
for
sure
you
know
I
think
my
own
point
of
view
is
that
we
could
probably
do
without
some
of
the
specificity,
because
there's
still
a
lot
to
to
test
and
learn
about
this.
D
B
D
D
And
I
think
it
definitely
is
stage
zero
and
I
think
it
probably
is
also
stage
one
because
I
feel
like
it's.
It
seems
like
the
community
is
saying
we
like
the
idea
of
this
individual
membership
program
or
class,
but
there's
work
to
do
to
figure
out
whether
it's
a
program
or
class
and
how
much
specificity
it
is
and
so
on.
Am
I
understanding
that
yeah,
okay.
B
C
A
B
F
B
We
broadcast
last
week,
but
Dolan,
of
course,
because
it
is
a
legal
classification,
would
probably
be
able
to
speak
better
to
like
why
it's
not
necessary
my
view,
and
this
is
a
single
person
I'm,
not
representing
anybody
else.
The
board
certainly
did
not
say
anything
to
this
degree
to
agree
with
me.
B
So
what
I'm
trying
to
say
here
is
I
think
that
it's
important
for
us
to
have
that
balance,
while
I
understand
that
we
don't
want
to
be
making
promises
in
like
the
bylaws.
That
would
make
the
foundation
like
legally
liable
for
things
that
don't
really
make
sense
to,
and
that's
where
I
think
Dolan
would
be
able
to
speak
better
to
like.
We
can
offer
this
as
a
program
without
having
it
as
a
membership
class.
But
I
do
think
again
that
the
legal,
the
accountability
legally
is.
A
Me
I'm
just
not
sure
how
having
a
class
of
members
helps
with
that,
though
right,
like
I,
could
see
us
having
something
written
into
the
Charter
or
the
bylaws.
That
says
we
will
have
this
program
and
this
is
the
requirement,
and
I
I
I
guess
you
know
like
you're
saying
we
need
Mike
to
help,
make
that
case,
that
you
do
or
don't
need
to
right.
A
B
Think
it
was
and
I
don't
I
think
it's
possible
with
these
new
bylaws.
That
we'll
were
like
feathering
that
you
know
we're
having
the
representation
on
the
board
without
having
a
membership
class.
I.
Think
that's
where
Dolan
is
going
with.
It
is
saying,
like
you
don't
right,
we
don't
you
don't
have
to
have
membership
class.
A
B
A
Because
I
mean
we
have
representation,
for
example,
for
the
TSC
and
Kham
Kham,
and
there's
no
class
of
members
behind
that
so
I.
It
makes
sense
to
me
that
you
can
have
representation
without
having
to
have
a
class
yeah,
but
it
sounds
like
you
prefer
to
defer
the
descriptive
discussion
until
next
time
when
Mike's
here.
B
C
B
A
B
A
I
suspect,
if
you
have
a
separate
Membership
class,
it'll,
be
harder
if
you
have
run
it
as
a
program
right.
D
And
I
was
just
thinking
like
it
to
see
this,
get
to
a
point
where,
where
we
regularly
had,
you
know
more
than
2,000
members
and
in
this
program,
at
which
point
we
can
make
the
case
that
it
needs
to
be
a
class,
for
example,
because
it's
really
become
that
big
of
a
component
to
the
to
the
work
prior
to
that
it
made.
It
may
actually
to.
F
Echo
acharya
just
said:
I
think
this
is
one
of
those
things
that's
a
little
easier
to
add
than
it
is
to
remove.
If
it's
so
you've,
you
know
if
we
get
started
and
discovered
that
we
need
something
amending
the
bylaws
to
add.
Additional
directors
is
probably
going
to
be
or
add
additional
classes.
It's
probably
gonna
be
a
bit
more
straightforward
than
having
to
make
the
decision.
When
at
what
point
you
know,
we
need
to
change
directions
if,
for
whatever
reason,
it
doesn't
work.
A
A
F
No
problem,
the
other
thing
I
think
you
know
in
terms
of
waiting
for
tall
and
one
of
the
things
that
we
may
want
to
consider
or
very
specifically
asked-
is
whether
there's
any
meaningful
difference
from
a
governance
perspective
of
having
a
class
or
having
board
seats.
And
if
the
goal
is
simply
to
have
the
board
seats
than
the
question,
I
think
would
become
what
is
the
most
simple
and
straightforward.
B
F
B
F
A
Okay,
now,
I
think
we're
we're
at
our
time
box
and
we're
gonna
continue.
The
discussion
so
I
think
we
I'd
suggest
we
leave
at
that
and
move
on
to
the
next
topics.
Unless
anybody
thinks
we
need
to
adjust
their
times
no
okay.
So,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
thing
we
had
a
time
box
on
was
the
codes
of
conduct.
We
have
10
minutes
roughly
for
that.
A
We're
one
minute
over
so
I'm
saying
about
41
minutes
should
be
our
target,
assuming
we
can
make
up
some
stuff
time
at
the
end,
I'd
written
out
in
the
PR
number
80,
some
initial
wording
for
a
code
of
conduct
and
I
guess
the
the
intent
here
is
to
discuss.
The
discussion
has
already
been
going
on
their
feedback
and
so
forth.
So
does
anybody
want
to
jump
in
with
comments.
D
You
know
code
of
conduct,
history
and
patterns,
and
that
kind
of
thing
just
to
provide
some
more
context
and
things
Iran
is
on
the
call
with
us
today,
but
I
thought
it
might
be
nice
to
share
some
of
her
just
findings.
If
that
made
sense,
don't
we
add
this
to
the
to
the
issue
later
if
she
doesn't
want
to
so
of
JSF
projects
as
arange
on
a
few
different,
a
six
projects
adopted
this,
the
CSC
from
the
contributor
covenant,
the
inversions,
1.3
or
1.4.
So
a
big
chunk
of
folks.
D
Using
that,
then
we
had
8j
s
foundation
projects
adopt
the
Jared
foundation
code
of
conduct,
which
is
not
explicitly
the
contributor
covenant,
but
is
somewhat
of
a
variant
of
it,
and
then
she
found
that
actually
11
projects,
and
these
are
largely
and
historical
projects
or
at
large
projects,
did
not
have
a
clear
COC
listed
somewhere.
So
that's
actually
an
issue
that
we
should
address.
D
So
a
bit
of
a
mix
was
found
and
I
think
that's
enough
to
indicate
that
either
people
aren't
really
sure
how
to
address
this
problem
and
are
happy
to
just
go
with
a
tool.
That's
been
wreckin
recommended
to
them.
You
know
or
they're,
not
exactly
sure
how
to
make
these
decisions
in
the
first
place
and
that's
something
that
they
want
more
help
with.
So.
D
And
so
all
of
the
projects
in
coming
into
the
foundation
had
to
agree.
You
know
to
adhere
to
a
code
of
conduct,
but
I
think
where
it
fell
down
is,
is
probably
an
education
of
the
choice
and
what
the
implications
and
trade-offs
of
different
choices
via
a
JSF
code
of
conduct
or
the
contributor
code
of
conduct
or
some
other.
You
know
template.
A
D
What
it
would
suggest
yes-
and
we
can
certainly
do
a
poll
among
our
projects
and
same
kind
of
response
we
get
but
I-
think
for
a
lot
of
the
projects.
They're
happy
to
take
guidance
and
direction
and
expertise
for
something.
That's
gonna
be
easy
for
them
to
adopt
and
understand
the
implications
of
soon.
A
D
C
A
That
yeah,
like
yeah,
that's
what
I
meant
to
say
is
that
you
know
in
the
case
where
somebody
disagrees
with
what
the
project's
done
then
there's
an
escalation
process
which
is
outside
of
that
project.
You
know
so
the
the
team
that
the
the
group
that
will
make
the
final
decision
will
be.
You
know,
at
least
in
part,
outside
of
the
project
itself
and.
D
I
think
that
wouldn't
be
I,
don't
think
that
would
be
an
issue
as
long
as
the
project's
get
an
opportunity
to
understand
that
escalation
path
weigh
in
on
it,
you
know
revise
it
from
time
to
time
as
needed.
I
imagine
they
probably
also
would
like
training
or
support
on
it
in
some
fashion.
Thank
you
very
helpful.
A
Any
other
comments
people
have
discussion,
concerns
I
mean
there
are
some
outstanding
comments
on
the
document
itself,
but
most
of
it
I
think
is
you
know,
clarification,
typos,
sofa
and
so
forth.
So
I
don't
think
there's
any
substantive
changes
currently
pending
in
terms
of
people
saying
no,
it
should
be
something
different
or.
A
Since
we
still
have
a
couple
minutes,
you
know
maybe
I.
What
I
would
like
is
feedback
from
people
here
is
like
the
makeup
of
the
Code
of
Conduct
panel.
You
know
what
I
have
listed
there
is.
You
know
the
foundation
executive
director,
one
member
from
the
board,
one
member
from
the
CPC
each
top-level
project
can
optionally
provide
a
member.
The
top-level
non
top-level
projects
can
obviously
provide
a
member
and
then
optionally,
one
invited
outside
expert,
as
agreed
by
the
other,
see
OPC
members.
A
D
Putting
on
Maidan
Apple
quest
hat,
who
you
know,
I,
think
it
always
gives
a
lot
of
great.
You
know
a
different
perspective.
I
would
want
to
see
more
than
just
one
person
from
from
the
outside,
because
it's
a
it's
highly
likely
that
we
will
always
get
a
diversity
of
perspective
and
background
and
experience
on
the
panel
if
we're
just
pulling
from
our
own
group,
and
so
it
made
it
may
behoove
us
to
to
create
more
space
for
folks
for
marginalized
groups.
D
A
D
C
A
D
B
B
Tough
here
because
I
know
the
I
think
I
know
the
reason
wants.
So
this
this
is
a
recommendation
that
we've
had
from
past
things
that
we
have
experienced.
So
this
is
not
like
over
optimizing
or
trying
to
be
like
really
inclusive
of
the
different
parts
of
the
foundation.
But
out
of
what
we've
seen
when
we've
had
to
escalate
things
to
a
pretty
high
degree,
I
think
there
are
some
scenarios
where
it's
like.
Oh
well,
an
individual
project
like
just
doesn't
have
the
support
to
be
able
to.
B
You
know
whole
report
versus
a
oh
there's,
a
conflict
between
projects,
and
we
need
to
manage
this
I
think
that
the
Reds
of
being
different
points
of
escalation,
where
it
may
actually
make
sense
because
I
know
in
the
past,
we
actually
had
a
scenario
to
where
it
was
asked
like
it
was
like
it
would
actually
be
helpful
for
a
board
member
or
an
executive
director
to
weigh
in
because
they
have
some
detachment
from
the
day-to-day
of
the
project
also
have
everyone's
best
interest
in
mind.
Legally.
E
C
A
It's
it's.
It's
a
it's
like
you,
you
don't
want.
You
know,
you
certainly
don't
want
like
it.
You
know
and
I
like
all
five
board
members
and
one
other
person
but
sort
of
getting
represent.
Eight.
The
hope
was
that
if
you
have
some
representation
from
a
bunch
of
different
areas
that
will
end
you
know.
A
Has
the
best
interest
that,
in
the
end,
that
gets
you
to
the
right
spot
now
I
suppose
be
more
specific
about
when
you
should
just
so,
for
example,
if
if
you
know
just
coming
to
my
mind,
like
you
know,
if
there's
a
complaint
against
somebody
in
the
CPC,
for
example,
maybe
the
member
from
the
CPC,
should
it
not
be
part
of
the
board
or
I
mean
I,
don't
know
you
can
get.
You
can
actually
have
arguments
both
ways
on
that.
One.
A
Well,
I
think
I
think
we
are
at
the
time
box
any
you
know
I
I.
Would
you
know
if
you
can
chime
into
the
issue
with
any
comments,
our
sort
of
next
steps
or
suggestions
for
for
tweaks,
like
you
know,
if
we
should
change
that
optionally
one
to
optionally
to
and
that
addresses
a
concern
or
if
it
needs
to
be
optionally,
four
or
whatever
add
in
those
kind
of
comments
we
can,
we
can
make
sure
to
continue
to
tweak
it
in
the
right
direction.
Okay,.
A
I
know
that
that's
helpful
for
sure
I
mean
I.
Think
our
next
steps
on
this
one
we
need
to
do
is
say
like.
Is
it
close
enough
that
we
need
to
now
like
we
did
discuss
last
time?
We
need
to
get
broader
input
I.
It
mentioned
it,
the
last
community
committee,
but
we
wanted
to
get
input
from
some
of
the
the
groups
that
would,
you
know,
be
looking
for
protection
under
a
code
of
conduct.
A
D
A
D
This
can
be
actually
really
quick,
because
I
wanted
to
just
share
that
the
feedback
that
we
have
had
so
far
on
number
74,
defying
open
governance
requirements
for
top
level
projects
has
not
been
incorporated
into
stage.
2
project
progression,
PR
that
I
opened
a
couple
of
hours
ago,
and,
and
you
can,
you
can
kind
of
see
how
that
that
has
folded
into
the
staging
there.
D
D
D
A
A
F
Yeah,
so
this
is
Brian.
I
opened
up
the
issue
after
a
conversation
with
miles
and
Mike
Dolan,
both
in
terms
of
whether
this
is
the
right
time
to
have
this
discussion
just
right
up
front
I
mean
the
reason
that
I
want
to
be
very
clear
about.
This
can
be
a
very
time-consuming,
very
difficult
discussion.
F
I
think
at
this
point,
what
both
Mike
and
miles
were
hoping
to
avoid
was
this
turning
into
something
that
would,
you
know,
potentially
be
the
last
blocking
issue
that
would,
you
know,
cause
us
to
delay
being
able
to
write
and
and
finalize
all
the
bylaws.
So
at
this
point,
I
think
we
could
either
approach
this
one
or
two
ways
either
we
could
talk
about
it
here
or
I
can
set
up
a
separate
call.
It
kind
of
really
depends
on
how
much
time
we
think
this
is
going
to
take
there
really.
F
There
are
three
major
options
that
we
have
in
front
of
us
want
us
to
stick
with
nodejs
foundation
as
the
name
of
the
umbrella
entity,
one
is
to
use
j/s
foundation
in
the
the
original
version
of
this
I'd
put
in
JavaScript
foundation.
That
is,
of
course,
incorrect.
We
are
not
able
to
use
that
because
of
the
trademark,
and
then
the
third
option
is
to
come
up
with
something
completely
new
and
different.
F
This
has
the
advantage
of
being
completely
fresh.
It
has
the
disadvantage
of
requiring
trademark
searches
and
registrations
and
everything
else
and
can
ultimately
be
fairly
expensive.
So,
with
that,
with
that
said,
does
anybody
have
a
strong
feeling,
whether
you
want
to
discuss
it
here
or
would
prefer
to
set
up
a
separate
call.
A
F
D
You
know
it's
a
shared
commonality
of
all
of
our
current
projects
and
second,
you
know
I
think
that
it
would
be
a
nice
kind
of
you
know,
Omar
homage
war
or
whatever
you
want
to
say,
because
the
the
J
s
foundation
itself
is
going
to
be
dissolving
and
entity
here
and
and
be
absorbed
by
the
no
Jaya
for
making
the
a
lovely
sort
of
thing
to
see
that
did
their
Jas
foundation
then
become
then
annexed
in
that
history.
So
that's
my
strong
opinion.
D
A
B
Don't
it's
hard
because
I
think
back
in
October,
when
we
drafted
that
dock
and
we
had
had
discussions
a
clad
Senate
about
it,
I
think
the
best
one
that
was
offered
otherwise
was
foundation
for
the
web,
because
people
were
trying
to
figure
out
like
what's
not
taken
already
and
like
what
would
make
things
for
us.
But
yeah
I
mean
Jason.
James
foundation
is
certainly
either
because
we
already
own
it
right
right.
A
The
other
alternate
that
I
had
heard
discussed
is
extending
what
was
done
for
the
the
conference,
which
was
like,
then,
the
node
plus
GS
foundation,
but
then
focusing
like
CN
CF
on
the
in
acronym,
as
opposed
to
saying
the
node
plus
GS
foundation,
all
the
time,
because
that
one,
you
know
with
the
plus
I
guess-
causes
URL
problems
or
whatever.
So
it
would
be
something
like
the
and
PJs
foundation
or
I.
A
Mean
that
that
would
you
know
I
think
the
reason
that
one
was
that
I'd
heard
mentioned
was
that
it
still
includes
note
in
the
name.
So
the
concern
you
just
raised
as
potentially
addressed
you
know,
I
think
there
there
we
have
heard
some
concerns
that
the
merger
would
dilute
focus
on
node
so
to
completely
drop
it
from
the
name
and
go
to
the
GS
foundation.
I
think
could
play
into
those
concerns.
A
F
F
B
F
Cf
is
an
example:
now,
unless
you're
deeply
involved
with
it,
you
really
would
recognize
kubernetes
much
more
often
if
he
would
recognize
CN,
CF
and
that's
largely
by
design
is
that
the
projects
themselves
are
intended
to
shine
through,
whereas
the
foundation
is
there
to
take
care
of
business.
So
you
know
III,
think
that
may
be
something
else
we
would
want
to
consider
is
that
does
does
node
have
sufficient
momentum
that,
regardless
of
what
the
name
of
the
foundation
is
that
it
would
still
maintain
its
full
identity
without
you
know,
concerns
about
dilution.
D
I
strongly
echo,
it
was
plus
one
what
you're
saying
Brian
I
mean
I
think
it
would
be,
or
ought
to
be,
a
goal
for
the
foundation
to
just
be
that
sort
of
the
quiet
platform
that
allows
the
projects
to
you
know
take
take
center
stage,
not
the
foundation
itself,
so
ultimately
I
think
it
would
be
a
shame
to
waste
too
much
times.
Then
you
know
you
know
chewing
on
a
name
when
what
we
want
to
be
talking
about
is
node
or
you
know,
web
hint
or
any
other
project.
Do
we
have.
E
D
That's
a
great
question:
Jo
and
actually
I
have
a
couple
of
projects
that
are
interested
in
exploring
just
that
as
well,
because
they've
been
looking
at
things
like
open,
collective
and
kind
of
thing
to
do
some
direct
project
funding,
I
think
that's
something
we
should
start
to
put
a
plan
together
for
within
the
bootstrap.
You
know
group,
then
those
factor
into
this
in
a
way
indirectly
yeah.
A
E
F
A
A
We
also
want
an
action
on
defining,
like,
though
we
think,
we've
we've
briefly
touched
about
it
in
previous
discussions,
but
in
terms
of
like
being
able
to
sponsor
beyond
you
know,
they're
the
models
I've
heard
before
is
like
you
know,
you
have
to
join
the
foundation
first,
but
once
having
joined
the
foundation,
you
can
then
either
direct
part
of
your
your
membership
fee
to
a
project
or
you
know,
provide
an
extra
donation
or
a
subscription
fee
to
a
particular
project.
Yeah.
C
F
A
D
A
F
So,
just
one
last
thing
before
we
get
too
far
away
from
this.
If
you
are
interested
in
participating
in
the
naming
discussion-
and
you
haven't
already-
please
+1
the
issue
and
that
way,
I
know
who
to
invite
so
I'm,
not
you
know
inviting
people
who
are
not
interested
or
missing
out
on
anybody
who
is
interested.