►
From YouTube: OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting
Description
B
B
C
C
C
C
D
D
Feedback,
I,
don't
know
he's
Mike.
Thank
you
essentially
only
for
substantive
changes
does
an
FYI
need
to
be
sent
to
the
board
and
kind
of
like
we
as
a
group
have
the
ability
to
decide
that
in
this
case
it
was
brought
first
because
the
TSE
was
originally
chartered
by
the
board.
So
it
was
replacing
references
to
the
board
with
the
CPC.
The
board
didn't
approve
or
deny
it.
They
simply
said
they
see
no
problems
with
it,
and
you
know
it
was
moved
forward
to
finish
the
process
here
with
the
CPC.
E
C
C
E
Guess
that's
a
good
question
in
terms
of
you
know
how
we
probably
need
to
write
it
down
at
some
point
or
like
how
are
we
gonna
be
reviewed
with
that
reviewing
approving
them,
I
assume
it's
the
just
the
regular.
Do
we
maybe
open
another
issue,
and
then
people
+1
and
if
there's
no
objection
to
go
through.
D
Yeah
considering
the
way
in
which,
like
no
two
had
charted
working
groups
in
the
past,
which
was
kind
of
just
like
everyone,
reviewed
I,
guess
yeah.
That
does
add
a
question
if
we
want
to
have
it
be
kind
of
a
plus
one
system
or
a
descent
system,
because
this
is
you
know,
we
want
to
make
sure
it
actually
is
eyes
on
it.
I
think
there's
also
a
question
about
whether
or
not
we
want
to
request
from
the
foundation
legal
review,
especially
for
the
initial
charters.
I
think
it's
up
to
us.
C
A
F
G
A
I
think
that
might
like
having
worked
with
this
stuff
before
to
some
extent
or
having
experienced
it,
that
might
be
massive
time
sink.
I
was
thinking,
yeah
and
so
I'd
be
concerned
about
that
and
making
sure
that
we're
not
we're
not
for
it
one
forcing
some
time
drain
on
people
who
don't
necessarily
want
it
and
to
making
sure
that
were
able
to
continue
doing
the
work
of
the
foundation.
That
said,
it
could
be
opt-in
if
projects
want
to
have
it
reviewed
I.
E
G
I
was
just
saying:
I
like
being
an
opt-in,
you
know,
process
and,
and
then
also
up
to.
We
could
establish
like
a
Charter
Review
subcommittee
for
this
group
and
then
leave
it
up
to
the
discretion
of
that
committee.
To
say
you
know
this
one
probably
had
to
be
run
up,
the
flagpole
Andy
or
you
know,
or
not,.
F
C
D
G
G
F
G
E
G
H
G
You
know
we
could
have
a
secondary
email
list,
but
again,
like
I,
think,
most
folks
and
busy
they
don't
always
have
time
to.
You
know
check
these
masks
like
newsletter
style
emails.
So
a
lot
of
times
what
I
just
has
found
is
more
effective
right,
personal
note,
and
that
gets
more
traction.
So
we
could
keep
a
list
of
the
project
leads
and
their
names
on
on
our
somewhere
in
our
github
org.
That
seems
like
it
would
make
sense,
don't
switch
back
of
all
of
the
projects.
We
should
keep
track
of
who's.
C
E
I'll
propose
I
will
open
a
issue
that
says:
approve
charter
changes
for
no
GS
charter
and
I'm
gonna
paste
the
link
into
the
issue
and
into
the
chat.
So
if
people
can
go
and
review
that
and
then
I
can
volunteer
to
open
an
issue
that
says
we
need
to
define
the
review
process
so
that
we
don't
forget
that
and
then
we'll
need
somebody
to
volunteer
to
sort
of
push
that
forward.
C
C
A
G
And
but
there
is
one
open
question,
which
is
whether
we
can
technically
whether
we
should
technically
call
in
a
working
group
which
I
think
is
valid.
So
we
call
it
like
an
interest
group
right
now
and
tell
the
CPC
actually
charters.
A
working
group
does
not
matter
to
me,
but
but
I.
Think
in.
If
we
do
want
to
be
very
you
know
precise
with
our
organization,
then
probably
we
should
I
should
have
been
more
thoughtful
on
that
or.
E
E
Action
because
it
doesn't
need
to
be
in
the
like
I,
don't
think,
we've
ever
put
team
in
the
repo
name
is
just
that.
It's
a
team
that
owns
that
repo
I.
Think
that's
fine!
If
that
way,
the
only
thing
is:
if
it
changes,
then
you
got
to
rename
the
repo
right
sure
I,
don't
really
have
any
strong.
You
know,
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
a
strong
feeling
one
way.
E
B
D
C
B
E
C
C
D
We
just
need
to
like
having
our
governance
for
the
team
like
listed
about
what
the
expectation
is
there,
because,
if
people
are
operating
under
the
expectation,
the
things
are
landing
in
the
weekly
meeting
and
not
in
between,
then
that
will
kind
of
mismatch.
The
expectation
of
for
landing
things
without
bringing
it
up.
During
the
meeting,
people
are
planning
to
operate
and
planning
to
engage
in
consensus.
E
Right
and
that's
what
I
was
just
saying:
we
should
define
that
because
it
seems
like
sometimes
we'll
land
some
things
other
times,
people
wait
and
it's
like
do.
We
need
to
wait
for
the
meetings
or
is
it
that
you
know
as
long
as
there
aren't
objections,
we
can
just
move
forward,
which
would
people
prefer
yeah.
H
E
B
C
D
B
D
That
we're
what
things
can
be
changed,
what
things
can't,
but
something
like
the
readme
is
probably
not
a
big
deal,
something
like
a
governance
document
or
a
proposal
like
a
change
in
in
the
proposals
staging
like.
We
may
want
to
just
document
that
to
be
explicit
about
about
certain
things
that
do
require
a
meeting
and
then
anything
else
can
be
good
and.
E
D
E
D
E
C
B
C
All
right,
great,
so
I
think
we're
good
on
this
one
yep.
The
next
issue
on
the
agenda
is
a
few
179.
This
is
nominating
chair
and
director
for
the
cross
project.
Council
I
believe
we're
going
to
wait
until
the
end
of
the
you
know
recent
events
in
Berlin
and
then
we
would
open
up
who
the
nominations
were
and
begin
voting.
Is
that
accurate?
C
G
C
I
C
J
A
A
C
J
C
H
C
D
I
J
C
B
J
Of
those
then
we'll
get
those
figured
out.
I
can
get
those
issues
opened
up
by
the
end
of
the
day.
If
you
want
to
give
it
a
week,
one
thought
would
be.
We
can
have
a
week
here
for
the
candidates
to
put
their
put
the
candidate
statements
in
and
then
it
could
be
a
topic
of
discussion
at
the
meeting.
We
can
either
hold
an
offline
vote
after
that,
or
do
the
vote
in
next
week's
meeting
either
way?
Well,
we
would.
J
Okay,
so
then
the
timing
which
should
still
work
out
so
assuming
that
we
have
a
single
candidate
for
a
position
then
next
week
it's
really
just
a
matter
of
affirming
and
their
Beast.
You
know
sufficient
time
to
to
see
what's
what
the
person
is
has
submitted
and
then
the
vote.
If
it's
offline
anyhow,
then
it's
we're
not
necessarily
bound
by
the
time
of
next
week's
meeting.
So
we
should
be
able
to
get
this
all
put
together
by
the
end
of
today,
though,.
C
B
E
E
C
E
C
Great
and
maybe
in
the
future,
we
can
keep
things
a
little
more
isolated
and
merge
them
and
quicker
and
get
smaller
issues
moved
forward.
I
mean
not
necessarily
a
small
issue:
regular
members,
great
okay,
so
moving
on
just
a
time
check
me
only
have
ten
minutes
left
here
new
process
for
CPC
reps
to
share
responsibility
for
travel
fund.
C
F
C
D
E
E
H
I
I
think
that's
what
miles
is
recommending,
because
even
if
you're,
like
the
part
of
the
point,
is
yes,
you
were
mostly
working
in
github
and
that's
great
and
we're
following
the
72
hour
rules.
But
if
we
are
like,
for
instance,
multiple
issues
today
talking
through
decisions
that
didn't
need
a
vote
necessarily
because
there's
no
objection
but
we
don't
have
quorum,
then
it's
just
reactors
showing
up.
That's
like
that's.
You
know
from
a
CPC
thing,
I
thought
we
were
trying
to
avoid
that
sort
of
thing
happening.
I
D
But
we
shouldn't
be
like
making
decisions
about
governance,
for
example
with
a
quorum
of
the
body
or
further
like
to
me.
If
we
are
not
consistently
reaching
quorum,
we
should
be
keeping
track
of
that,
and
that
should
be
something
that
we're
bringing
up
with
devoting
CPC
members,
because
we
should
have
enough
attendance
from
those
members
that
we
constantly
have
quorum.
Otherwise,
we
have
a
bigger
problem
in
engagement
from
the
projects.
B
I
E
That
is
defined
in
the
Charter,
like
the
charters
specific
about
the
things
that
the
voting
members
have
to
have
to
decide
on
and
basically
then
says
other
things.
So
basically,
like
project
progression,
that's
clear
about
that
being
something
the
members
need
to
be
involved
in
and
make
the
just
it's.
But
that
is
and
then
there's
that
there
I
have
to
go
back
and
look
at
it,
but
it
does
have
the
list
basically
for
anything
else.
Where
the
group
can't
come
to
a
consensus,
then
the
voting
members,
you
know,
make
the
take
a
vote.
A
G
Would
have
point
out
that
one
of
the
reasons
why
at
least
one
project
isn't
able
to
attend
is
the
meeting
time,
and
that
was
a
matter
that
we
had
hoped
to
have
settled.
You
know
some
time
ago,
and
so
I
would
love
for
us
to
close
out
the
issue
of
a
new
meeting
date
and
time
so
that
we
can.
We
can
accommodate
those
other
projects
that
aren't
able
to
meet
on
Mondays
yep.
C
Do
we
propose
so
moving
on
to
issue
number
129
because
I
that's
what
I
was
hoping
to
do
as
well
before
time
ended?
How
do
we
propose
we
solve
this
meeting
issue
challenge
that
we've
been
unable
to
get
past
I
suppose
I
propose
that
we
have
a
you
know,
separate
meeting
to
just
kind
of
work
through
this.
Somebody
said
that
there's
a
tool
that
that
can
evaluate
a
spreadsheet
like
this
and
find
optimum
times.
We
just
need
to
figure
it
all.
I
mean.
C
B
E
E
B
B
G
C
C
C
H
Doesn't
seem
like
an
issue
that
is
getting
soaked
through
meetings.
We
have
the
the
github.
This
sounds
like
going
to
get
some
issue
that
gets
people
to
basically
deal
with
the
issue
when
they're
not
explicitly
time
limited,
as
we
explicitly
now
currently
are.
So
if
you
Joe
Brighton
issue,
and
then
we
take
it
there
and
then
try
and
come
up
with
some
solution
like
three
sets
of
two
times
between
which
we
alternate
and
then
end
up
picking
one
of
those
so
the
way
that
I'm.
A
Would
very
much
like
to
recommend
that
we
have
this
result
by
the
next
meeting.
This
has
been
going
on
for
a
very
long
time
and
I
believe
the
deadline
was
May
1st
and
it's
now
June
10th,
so
it'd
be
awesome.
If
we
could
just
finalize
this
and
Jory
specifically,
do
you
know
the
individuals
who
are
not
the
ones
that
are
able
to
not
make
this
meeting,
but
also
just
the
ones
that
this
meeting
privates
visited?
Looking
convene
it
for
whether
or
not
they're
here
today.
G
C
I
Just
because
I
know
that
we're
out
of
time,
but
we
had
a
twee
I,
had
asked
this
in
the
chat
and
I
know
Myles.
You
had
responded,
but
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure.
So
when
we
talked
about
the
nominations
being
it
with
Brian
Warner.
Are
we
clear
then
that
the
nominations
are
closed?
Now
someone
was
asking
in
the
open
Jan
slack.
I
H
As
a
final
note,
I
know
we're
over
time,
probably
technically
over
the
quorum
question
I,
while
we've
been
talking,
I've
gone
over
the
Charter
and
whatever
I
could
find.
I
cannot
find
any
documentation.
That
would
say
that
we
do
have
a
minimum
quorum.
So
the
assumption
that
we
need
half
of
the
participants
is
I
think
an
assumption
that
we
are
making
I,
don't
think
we
can
be
under
quorum
at
the
moment.
So.