►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting
Description
The OpenJS Foundation is a member-supported non-profit organization that provides a neutral home for some of the most important project in the JavaScript ecosystem.
Learn more and join us at https://openjsf.org
A
A
A
One
to
share
is
that
we
had
our
Open
Jazz
foundation
marketing
call
this
morning
and
it
was
really
well
attended
and
Rachel.
Do
you
want
to
just
give
a
quick
update
actually
about
that
since
you're
on
the
call
today,
I
know
that
we
really
want
to
make
sure
C
CPC
reps
are
aware
of
all
the
fun
stuff
we're
doing,
and
marketing
and
ways
folks
can
help
you
and
get
a
pickup
date.
Sure.
B
Sure,
well,
yeah,
we
have
we
had
our
meetings.
Our
monthly
meeting
today
and
Jory
said
it
was
pretty
well
attended
for
those
who
have
not
been
to
a
marketing
meeting.
We
typically
go
through
the
metrics
that
we
track
as
a
foundation,
so
social
media
content,
blog
post
view
things
like
that.
Much
of
it
is
very
similar
to
what
we
go
through
on
the
board
calls.
So
do
the
tended
for
those
you
kind
of
know
what
that
stuff
looks
like
I.
B
Think
specifically,
we
talked
about
content
pipeline
and
content
ideas
and
specifically,
we
talked
about
developer
profile.
So
if
you
or
someone
you
know
are
interested
in,
you
know
having
a
quick
conversation
with
me
about
some
of
the
fun
things
you're
working
on.
We
can
write
that
up
into
a
blog
post
and
get
that
posted
and
out
on
social
and
things
like
that.
We
talked
about
member
profiles,
you're
part
of
a
member
company,
and
you
want
to
participate
in
that.
That's
also
an
opportunity
and
yeah.
B
A
A
B
To
that,
to
that
point,
some
of
the
you
know
as
we're
tracking
these
metrics
one
of
the
questions
that
came
up
with
you
know
what
performs
well,
and
one
of
the
topics
of
discussion
today
was
blogs
that
are
more
technical
in
nature.
Actually
do
tend
to
do
pretty
well
on
our
blog
on
the
open,
Jazz
foundation
blog.
B
So
if
there's
things
that
you're
working
on
that,
you
know,
maybe
you
you
feel
that
are
too
technical
for
hours
about
where
we're
willing
to
to
post
it
and
to
see
how
it
does,
because
that
has
not
been
necessarily
the
case.
We've
actually
gotten
pretty
good,
pretty
good
performance
on
some
of
the
more
technical
things.
Oh.
A
Great,
thank
you
a
bunch
for
that
update
and
we
really
encourage
everyone
who's
interested
in
these
kinds
of
topics
to
join
us
in
the
PR
marketing
channel
on
to
so
you
can
get
involved
there.
Other
updates
are
announcements
on
we
it's
it's
we're
on
the
off
week,
so
we
don't
have
a
summit
or
a
standards
meeting
this
week,
but
those
are
being
held
next
week
and
obviously
we
continue
to
remind
folks
to
tell
their
friends
and
peers
and
the
projects
about
open,
Jas
worlds,
2020,
which
is
in
June.
A
A
D
C
D
A
F
A
E
G
G
Because
of
you
know,
comments
on
there,
they
were
going
back
and
forth.
People
thought
some
of
the
points
which
were
there
were
repetitive
and
not
needed,
whereas
on
my
end,
I
didn't
delete
any
of
the
points
because
I
didn't
know
like
you
know
that
the
members
might
want
to
have
it
just
for
clarification
or
extra
clarity,
so
I
have
still
kept
it.
G
H
Just
kind
of
adding
to
that
really
quickly,
I
haven't
had
a
chance
to
review
the
whole
thing
yet,
but
I
can
go
through
and
take
a
look
at
I
do
think
it's
important
to
not
be
like
too
repetitive,
because
if
there's
too
many
sources
of
truth
for
information,
if
you
can
see
for
that
to
get
sale
or
to
be
confusing
to
people,
so
divvy
I'd
be
happy
to
go
through
that
and
and
just
in
general,
with
these
kinds
of
things
you
know
I.
Think
with
you.
H
A
Okay,
great
well,
I'm
really
appreciate
stepping
up
to
do
that.
Debbie,
we'll
all
take
some
time
this
week
too,
and
just
take
a
look
I'm
sure
it's
it's
great
and
I'll,
certainly
on
my
plus
one
as
soon
as
I
can
but
that'll
be
that'll.
Be
wonderful!
Thank
you.
So
be
no
further
discussion
here.
Let's
move
on
down
to
issue
number
four.
Eighty
eight,
which
is
nominations
sought
for
twenty
twenty-two
/
twenty
twenty-one.
Why
is
that
hard
to
say
voting?
Cpc
membership.
A
E
E
Exist
so
I
encourage
folks
to
submit
and
and
perhaps
to
reach
out
to
their
project
communities
that
they
know
someone
who
may
be
at
you
know
interested,
and
you
know
another
valuable
voice
to
add
to
the
conversation
you
know
encourage
those
folks.
I
have
some
emails
in
my
inbox,
so
that's
great,
but
otherwise
yeah
things
are
moving
along
there.
One
of
you
said
that
the
end
of
this
week
is
the
cutoff
sorry
March.
F
A
Projects,
yes,
are
able
to
select
through
whatever
means
they,
they
choose
and
we'll
be
doing
an
election
for
the
non
impact
projects.
We
do
want
the
impact
projects
to
have
selected
their
their
reps
by
whatever
means
they
they
want
to
do
that,
and
because
that
that
term
starts
at
the
in
at
the
beginning
of
April,.
I
E
A
All
right
move
it
on
to
issue
number
476
projects
with
Windows
and
Mac
installers,
and
this
is
a
survey
that
Brian
Warner
and,
in
particular,
wanted
to
champion
just
to
get
some
information
and
feedback
from
projects
we've
had
maybe
six
seven
responses
to
this
I'm,
not
sure
that
we
really
need
to
leave
the
cross
project
council
agenda
label
on
this
any
longer,
but
I'll
Michael.
You
are
also
a
little
bit
involved
with
this
any
thoughts
on
on
that.
You
think
we're
done
with
this
issue.
I.
J
I'm
here
and
just
for
anybody
who's
curious
what
we're
talking
about
if
your
project
uses
a
Windows
or
a
Mac
based
installer,
please
fill
out
the
survey
the
jory
sent
out
we're
trying
to
figure
out
just
yet.
The
threads
of
this
here
are
that
node
does
use
installers.
There
are
increased
requirements
if
you
want
to
have
a
signed
installer
on
Mac
and
potentially
also
on
Windows,
and
if
you
don't
want
your
users
to
get
a
scary
warning
about
how
this
is
untrusted
software,
we
can
help
fix
that,
but
we
need
to
know
which
projects
need.
D
A
A
F
F
So
that's
what
I've
done,
except
that
there's
one
piece
which
would
be
like
changing
the
governance,
so
I
think
like
the
original
PR
we'll
have
a
proposal
plus
something
which
is
outside
the
proposal.
Just
so,
people
can
see
what
the
whole
thing
would
look
like,
and
we
would
probably
remove
that
piece
before
landing
it
or
whatever.
But
the
answer
is
yes,
but
there's
a
that
little
tweak,
because
I
also
want
to
have
something
and
it
that
changes
existing
files,
which
I
wasn't
quite
sure
how
to
do
otherwise.
A
A
K
Here:
hey
team:
yes,
we've
had
some
interested
folks
and
we've
had
some
crickets,
some
non-communication,
so
we're
actually
we
met
and
we
brainstormed
a
list
of
folks
would
be
great
candidates
to
serve
on
the
CPC.
So
we're
gonna
take
two
paths.
If
you're
interested
please
reach
out
to
me
and
Joey
otherwise,
and
then
we're
also
going
to
take
a
second
path
and
reach
out
to
others
who
may
be
interested
as
well.
A
F
J
F
Because
it's
mostly
around
the
you
know,
we've
got
a
makeup
that
was
listed
in
the
governance,
so
we
need.
You
know
people
from
different
areas.
If
we,
if
we
have
at
least
one
volunteer,
that's
all
we
need
from
that.
That
group
is,
you
know,
assuming
that
you
know,
for
example,
the
rest
of
the
board.
Members
agree
with
whoever
volunteered
on
the
board
I
just
wondering
if
we
could
fill
in
those
because
I
think,
if
CPC
board
those
were
to
I
thought
we
could
hopefully
close
in
close
on
if
we've
gotten
responses,
yeah.
J
H
K
A
A
C
Hold
again
for
next
week,
I
just
like
I,
won't
need
to
be
prepping
and
like
bringing
you
know
like
the
linguist,
like
kids,
not
going
to
school
and
all
that
stuff.
So
please
bear
with
me
another
week,
I'm,
sorry
that
this
is
taking
longer
than
expected,
and
the
same
goes
for
the
other
issue.
That's
then
I
was
then
I
promise
we
get
to
it.
I
really
need
to
get
to,
but
they
didn't
have
time
to
get
to.
A
A
F
Don't
think
there's
anything
new,
although
I
I
do
think
more
MRSA
had
opened
something
and
I'm
just
not
finding
it
right
now
an
issue
or
a
PR
where
people
would
be
good
at
people
judge
you
know
jumped
in
actually.
Here
we
go
it's
49
the
security
reporting
proposal,
so
that's
actually
open
and
if
you
know
people
can
chime
in
and
discuss,
there's
already
a
fair
amount
of
discussion.
But
that's
that's
the
next
step
on
that.
A
Okay,
well
and
I'm,
really
appreciative
of
everyone's
work
on
that
I.
Think
that's
gonna
be
a
great
addition
to
foundation
policy
so
thing.
Thank
you.
Everyone
from
the
nude
community,
especially
he's
been
working
all
right.
Number.
Ninety
and
project
directed
funding.
I
know
this
also
got
an
update.
Last
week.
K
K
K
A
F
H
C
H
Also,
adding
that
this
is
the
last
item
in
progress
on
the
post,
bootstrap
housekeeping,
which
is
pretty
exciting
and
so
for
what
it's
worth,
though
Michael.
If
we
do
close
that,
then,
like
all
the
issues
inside
of
that
tracker
are
done.
So
if
we
want
it,
I
personally
think
we're
probably
better
off
leaving
that
open,
rather
than
starting
a
new
issue,
unless
you
think
the
content
that
is
in
there
is
distracting
just
because
it's
not
like
there's
new
work
to
be
done.
H
F
I'm
not
saying
we
should
talk
about,
I
have
no
strong
feelings,
one
way
or
the
other
I
think
like
I
just
looked
at
the
issue
and
if
you
look
at
the
first
thing,
that's
just
been
addressed,
but
I,
if
you
think
just
leaving
it
open
as
our
placeholder
is
that
I
think
I
get
weird
what
you're
getting
at
like.
Let's
just
leave
it
open,
that's
the
path
of
least
resistance,
at
least
noise
yeah.
H
H
A
H
A
Alright
go
to
you
and
alright,
that's
the
that's
it
for
the
CPC
repository
I
will
move
on
to
our
open,
J's
foundation,
standard
repository
and
issue
number
58
there
is
car
during
the
standards
mean
I,
know
the
standards
team.
We
made
a
lot
of
great
progress
last
week
and
miles.
Do
you
want
update
on
that?
One
yeah.
H
Essentially,
we
had
two
things
that
we
discussed
on
the
last
call
that
was
blocking
the
chartering.
One
was
the
baseline
documentation
landing
in
the
cross
project,
Council
repo,
specifically
the
documentation
around
how
a
working
group
gets
chartered
and
then
separately
like
the
actual
text
of
the
Charter
itself.
So
let
me
see
if
this
will
work.
A
H
The
standards
working
group,
so
here
we
go,
the
change
adds
standards
to
the
list
where
there
are
none
currently,
and
it
includes
a
purpose.
This
is
modeled
after
how
we
do
it
in
the
technical
steering
committee
here,
which
is
working
groups,
so
you
could
see.
The
dock
is
very
similar
and
down
here
are
examples
of
projects
they
have
kind
of
like
a
description
of
the
project
and
then
a
list
of
responsibilities.
H
It's
a
similar
lis
weed
for
scanners
now
say
the
purpose
of
the
standards
working
group
is
to
act
as
a
facilitator
for
the
open,
GS
foundation,
projects
to
support
their
engagement
in
various
standards,
organizations,
working
groups,
technical
committees
and
other
spaces
where
internationally
recognized
standards
are
collaborated
upon.
The
responsibilities
include,
approve
and
support
up
and
Janice
and
project
contributors
in
attending
meetings
held
by
standards.
Organizations
make
up
and
jazz
foundation
project
contributors,
aware
of
developments
in
relevant
standards,
help
open
jazz
foundation
projects,
formulate
a
standard
strategy
support
new
contributors
to
standards
make
agent
activities
mentor.
H
Project
contributors
were
unfamiliar
with
the
standard
making
process,
make
recommendations
to
the
cross
project
Council.
Regarding
standards,
organization,
membership
manage
ongoing
relationship
with
standards,
organizations
ensuring
that
open,
jeaious
representatives
are
aware
of
the
responsibilities
of
being
a
delegate
of
the
foundation,
as
outlined
in
the
membership
expectations
facilitate
when
different
projects
need
conflict.
Maybe
that
should
be.
They
don't
need
conflict.
Oh.
H
Sorry
struggling
with
the
UI
trying
to
do
this
live
there's
my
live
demo
about
getting
a
dog,
so
the
only
bit
there
that
maybe
would
maybe
be
done
of
interest
to
be
seeing
this
membership
expectation
document,
and
so
our
participants
in
the
open,
jazz
foundation,
projects
and
groups
must
follow
the
code
of
conduct.
There
are
further
expectations
from
members
who
participate,
who
represent
the
standards
working
group
hereafter
called
representatives.
It
is
understood
that
representatives
may
form
opinions
based
on
the
needs
of
their
employers
for
their
personal
projects.
H
While
representing
the
standards
working
group,
however,
they
should
decide
discuss,
promote
based
on
the
interests
of
the
standards
working
group.
If
there
is
a
conflict
due
to
personal
or
company
specific
projects
than
the
representative
should
be
explicit
about
the
half
they're
wearing,
while
deciding
discussing
promoting
the
project.
Since
many
members
are
often
a
part
of
one
or
more
projects
in
the
foundation
feel
free
to
discuss
it
with
members.
If
there
is
a
potential
conflict,
while
representing
the
representative,
can
raise
an
issue
and
discuss
them
during
the
standards
team
meeting.
H
The
the
model
of
accountability
and
leadership
provide
the
example
of
ownership
and
stewardship
that
everyone
could
follow
to
success,
commit
to
ongoing
development
in
learning
best
practices
for
governing,
so
just
to
kind
of
talk
a
little
bit
more
about
like
what
all
this
means
trying
to
based
on
the
way
in
which
we've
done
working
groups
and
note.
The
idea
here
would
be
if
and
when
the
cross
project
Council
approves
of
this
chartering.
H
Essentially,
what
would
end
up
happening
would
be
the
the
standards
working
group
would
own
all
of
those
responsibilities
that
are
outlined
in
that
document,
and
if
the
cross
project
council
wanted
to
override
a
decision
from
the
standards
working
group
in
that
space,
they
would
need
to
deter
the
group
in
order
to
do
so.
This
is
important
to
ensure
that
organizations
and
subgroups
are
able
to
have
their
own
autonomy
and
not
be
blocked
from
doing
work
by
outside
by
other
organizations.
It
is
also
kind
of
recognizing
that
you
know.
H
Well,
we
are
a
group
of
experts
in
the
cross
project
Council
and
many
of
a
there's.
A
lot
of
overlap
between
the
two
groups
obviously,
but
like
these
are
different
hats
and
different
places
where
we're
working,
and
that
like
we
are
recognizing
that
the
people
who
are
in
that
team
that
working
group
are
the
experts
on
this
and
we
as
a
crossbar
Council,
defer
to
their
expertise
on
these
matters.
H
I
think
a
really
great
example
of
you
know
like
how
this
would
work
in
practice
would
be
thinking
about
how
asking
for
membership
at
an
aid
organization
would
work.
We
did
this
recently
with
the
OSI
with
the
Alliance.
Let's
say
we
identify
a
new
standards
organization,
the
fubar
Alliance
that
we
want
to
that.
We
want
to
join
the
standards.
Team
would
be
responsible
for
kind
of
identifying
that
you
know
the
FDA
the
food.
Our
alliance
is
somewhere
that
we
would
like
to
apply
for
membership.
The
ask
would
go
to
the
cross
project
Council.
H
To
kind
of
you
know,
then
bring
that
to
the
board
to
approve.
One
could
argue
that
the
crud
that
the
standards
organization
could
go
directly
to
the
board
with
these
things,
although
I'm
imagining
that,
for
all
the
projects
and
working
groups
within
the
open,
J's
foundation,
the
CPC
acts
kind
of
is
like
an
API
to
the
board
so
that
the
board
doesn't
have
all
sorts
of
you
know
folks,
reaching
out
independently.
H
They
are
a
for-profit
venture,
funded
startup
and
we
don't
actually
want
to
give
them
our
money,
and
that
could
be
a
reason
that
it
comes
back
to
the
standards
organ.
We
don't
move
forward,
but
you
know:
okay,
these
things
will
be
a
little
blurry
and
we'll
have
to
navigate
them
kind
of
one
step
at
a
time,
but
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
clarify
the
importance
of
the
autonomy
in
which
we're
trying
to
put
in
place,
especially
when
it
has
to
do
with
sending
people
to
standards
groups.
H
So
this
once
this
is
approved
and
landed,
the
standards
working,
we'll
be
sending
people
and
actually
another
example,
and
then
I'll
start
blabbing
sending
a
person.
So
the
standards
working
group
would
be
the
authority
to
approve
that
someone
should
go
representing
the
foundation
to
these
standards
bodies,
and
but
we
are
not
approving
a
travel
fund.
H
The
standards
group
may
advise.
You
know
like
how
they
engage
in
a
way.
That's
respectful
of
the
travel
fund,
but
approving
the
actual
travel
fund
for
that
person
would
still
fall
on
the
CPC
for
approving
those
funds
and
in
the
same
way
that
a
project
member
from
any
project
will
come
and
request.
Friends
from
the
CPC
and
the
CPC
may
check
with
those
projects
to
ensure
that,
like
you
know,
these
funds
are
being
allocated
appropriately.
H
The
standards
working
group
would
fill
that
role
for
a
standards,
related
activity
and
so
I
think
that
it
shows
a
good
at
least
to
me
a
good
example
of
like
how
we're
still
collaborative
here
there
are
no
silos,
but
that
it's
just
about
kind
of
ensuring
that
when
we
say
we're
sending
this
person
to
represent
the
foundation,
we
truly
mean
that
and
we
don't
need
to
come
and
kind
of
get
approval
from
the
CPC
every
time.
We
want
to
do
that,
because
that
would
create
a
lot
of
undue
friction
for
the
team.
H
Any
questions
or
concerns,
I
guess
one
other
high-level
question
and
then
I
am
actually
done.
Talking
is
what
do
we
need
for
this
to
actually
be
approved
and
landed
because
I
don't
know
if
we
put
explicit
governance
in
the
approval
of
working
groups,
yet
I
assume
we
probably
want
to
have
maybe
an
approval
from
a
majority
of
voting
members
or
something,
but
maybe
it
would
be
good
to
get
a
pulse
on
how
people
I.
C
Have
two
comments:
first
of
all,
I
think
it's
very
good
I'm
in
very
complete
and
captures
the
way
work
happens
in
standard
organizations
very
well.
So
that's
great!
Oh!
The
second
one
is
a
really
tiny
thing
that
I
would
you
know,
do
an
MPR
if
I
could
but
I
think
that
in
the
document
on
the
membership
expectations
that
you
shared,
it's
not
part
of
that
PR
I.
H
C
It
would
be
useful
to
also
mention
that
different
standards
groups
often
have
their
own
code
of
conducts
and
their
own
rules
that
representatives
are
supposed
to
be
to
abide
by.
That
might
be
slightly
different
and
that's
you
know
actually
just
at
least
worth
mentioning
that
and
making
sure
that
people
also
abide
by
those.
H
F
Done
the
other
question
adding
a
section
to
the
governance?
That's
you
know
we
have
a
proving
project
charters
merging
pairs
in
this
repository.
It
probably
is
worthwhile
having
like
approving
working
groups-
and
you
know
we
can
either
choose
one
of
the
existing
ones.
Like
you
know,
the
approving
project
charters
is
like
you
know,
there's
no
standing
objections
or
two
or
more
approvals
by
voting
CPC
members
and
it's
been
open
for
at
least
14
days.
It
also
includes
the
board's
been
consulted,
but
I
don't
think
that
the
board
needs
to
be
consulted
in
this
case.
A
My
preference
would
be
to
keep
it
consistent
with
other
time
yeah
so
like
the
14
day
requirement.
Just
because
there's
really
no
need
to
try
and
keep
track
of
different
time
lengths
of
time,
because
it
seems
arbitrary,
so
yeah.
H
Kind
of
building
on
that
exact
thought
jory,
like
perhaps
it
just
makes
sense,
maybe
then
to
even
just
under
the
section
about
governance
changes.
Just
add.
Like
even
a
note
that
says
this
applies
to
working
groups
as
well,
because
in
this
is
governance,
changes
so
like
that
that
seems
very
appropriate.