►
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
I
should
leave
that
open.
Thank
you.
Everybody
for
joining
another
episode
of
the
openjs
foundation's
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
the
13th
of
october
and
yeah.
Thanks
for
joining,
don't
forget
folks
who
are
in
the
meeting
to
drop
your
name
and
such
your
handle
into
the
meeting
minutes
and
also
you
know,
everybody
likes
a
a
note
taker.
So
please
help
out
there.
A
Thank
you.
So
getting
things
started,
do
we
have
any
announcements.
B
We
have
several
things
that
we
just
want
to
make
sure
folks
are
aware
of
so
they
can
follow
along
and
get
involved
and
tune
in,
and
that
sort
of
thing
today
is
amp
fest,
happy
aunt
fest
to
ampers
out
there
and
they
kicked
off
that
content
this
morning.
But
you
know
that's
going
to
be
available
all
all
day
and
onward
on
youtube,
so
go
check
it
out
if
you're
at
all
interested
and
also
the
amp
tsc
is
going
to
be
doing
an
ama
with
us.
B
Ask
me
anything
with
them
with
with
the
amp
tsc
team.
That's
tomorrow,
after
let's
see
is
that
11
noon
eastern,
I
think
it's
noon,
eastern,
and
so,
if
you
have
questions
or
you
want
to
tune
in
live
for
that,
you
can
do
that
on
our
openjs
foundation
channel
and
we'll
be
tweeting
about
that
as
well
in
the
next
week,
or
so,
we've
got
a
couple
of
different
working
meetings
that
I
think
y'all
may
enjoy.
B
One
is
the
marketing
committee
is
going
to
be
meeting
next
tuesday
love
to
get
more
of
our
community
participants
involved
in
those
and
those
conversations.
So
please
dial
in
it's
on
our
public
calendar
if
you're
interested.
We
also
have
the
standards
working
group
meeting
next
week.
We're
going
to
be
I'm
talking
about
sort
of
2021
strategy,
because
thank
god,
this
year
is
going
to
be
over
very
soon
everyone,
and
so
we're
going
to
be
thinking
about
next
year
and
getting
very
excited
together
on
that.
B
So
join
us
for
that
conversation
if
you
would
like-
and
we
have
lots
of
kind
of
boot
up
activities
happening
around
the
open
js
world
for
2021,
which
is
another
thing
that
we're
looking
forward
to
and
would
love
to
have
more
community
interest
in
and
organizing,
if
you're
at
all
interested
in
the
programming
committee
work
and
do
reach
out
to
us.
I
think
that's
the
bulk
of
it
unless
I'm
missing,
something
which
I
usually
am.
A
I
was
waiting
for
that
as
well
good.
Thank
you,
jory,
thanks
for
all
that
cool
and
good
luck
to
amp
today.
I
hope
everything
goes
well
cool,
so
we
can
probably
run
through
the
agenda
pretty
quickly.
As
I
mentioned
before,
we
started
the
stream
we'll
we'll
go
through
the
agenda,
hopefully
have
a
good
chunk
of
time
to
work
on
some
some
stuff.
A
In
the
second
half
of
the
meeting
we
agreed
last
week
to
talk
about
the
staging
proposal
process,
which
I
look
forward
to
getting
into
so
jumping
into
the
agenda.
The
first
item
on
here
is
pull
request.
659,
this
is
add,
icla
only
option
to
ip
policy
guidance.
A
A
Beauty,
I'm
on
it
great
that
is
happening
and
is
merged.
A
Thank
you,
toby,
so
that
knocks
that
one
out
growth
plan
template
is
issue.
658
toby
opened
this
a
week
ago.
D
A
D
A
Okay,
great,
so
I
guess
we'll
we'll
consider
this
as
something
we
can
work
on
in
an
upcoming
cpc
meeting.
That
kind
of
a
plan.
A
All
right
cool
I'm
moving
on
unless
anybody
has
anything
else
there.
A
The
next
item
here
is
poor
quest
650.
This
is
the
proposal
to
remove
the
growth
stage.
This
is
a
draft.
This
is
something
that
we've
been
kind
of
talking
about
in
terms
of
this
is
sort
of
born
out
of
the
review
process.
That
has
been
a
conversation
in
a
variety
of
angles
over
the
last
couple
months.
I
guess
so
there's
a
some
some
commentary
here
over
the
last
couple
weeks.
A
Toby's
not
here,
but
I
know
michael
you
commented.
Are
you
familiar?
Do
you
want
to
update
folks
on
what
we
have
here?
Well.
D
Look
like
you
know,
look
at
what
they
look
like
and
then
use
that
to
decide
whether
yeah
it
makes
sense
to
have
a
separate
growth
stage
or
or
not,
and
so
that's
kind
of
my
remembrance
of
the
next
step
was
to
build
out.
I
think
you
know
toby
was
going
to
create
one
for
amp
and
chris
was
going
to
work
on
one
for
mocha,
and
then
we
were
going
to
look
at
those
to
kind
of
inform
this
kind
of
pr
and
and
the
other
work
around.
That
area.
A
Yeah,
this
is
officially
pulling
out
the
growth
stage
as
a
project
stage
right
right.
It
is
adding
the
growth
plan
bits,
but
is
also
removing
the
whole
section
of
a
growth
stage.
Yeah.
D
A
D
A
Yeah
yeah,
I'm
I
appreciate
this
work.
Getting
kicked
off,
it
makes
sense
to
me
I'm
going
to
dig
into
the
pr
details
today
and
and
I'll
add
any
comments.
I
encourage
everyone
else
to
do
the
same.
Does
anybody
have
any
comments
or
thoughts?
They
want
to
whoops
to
add
to
this
dylan
in
here.
A
No
all
right
cool.
Well,
I
encourage
folks
to
take
a
look
at
it.
It's
it's
a
pretty
big
change
for
you
know
from
what
we've
been
doing,
but
I
think
it
makes
sense
so
cool
moving
along.
The
next
item
is
issue
649.
Should
we
have
a
lightweight
mechanism
to
spin
off
ad
hoc
cpc
working
groups?
I
think
we
kind
of
have
this
sort
of
figured
out
right.
I
mean
we
were
talking
about
some
sort
of
issue
template,
but
also
using
cpc
meetings
as
working
meetings
as
well.
E
Yeah,
do
we
think
that
we
normally
have
I've
observed
most
meetings
go
like
50
40
to
50
minutes,
though
some
of
them
end
a
bit
early.
Have
you
do
you
think
that
is
sufficient
for
spinning
off
new
groups
or
the
idea
is
to
test
it.
A
E
E
A
Yeah,
okay,
yeah
well
yeah.
That
makes
sense.
I
work
at
ibm
and
our
calendaring
system
is
terrible.
So
there's
I
have
no
hope
for
that
ever
happening
at
least
for
me
yeah.
So
I
think
I
think
trying
it
in
the
meetings
is
good.
I
do
think
that
maybe,
whether
it's
an
issue
template
or
or
some
other
like
guidance,
might
be
good
for
folks
who
are
just
like
I'd
like
to
help.
A
You
know
spin
off
this
this
conversation,
but
I
don't
know
I'm
a
little
intimidated
by
the
steps
that
need
to
happen
and
just
having
something
clear
might
be
good
as
well.
For
those
times
that
you
know
we
do
want
to
have
a
dedicated
conversation.
A
So
all
right,
well
we'll
see
we'll
try
this
out
and
if
anybody
wants
to
take
a
stab
at
any
other
angles
on
this,
please
get
involved
in
the
issue
and
share
your
thoughts
cool.
I
will
continue
on.
A
Actually,
where
am
I
growth
plan
templates?
This
is
pull
request
647..
A
This
has
a
number
of
approvals
and
reviews
already.
This
has
been
open
for
21
days
to
okay.
So
I
think
from
two
weeks
ago,
a
meeting,
a
cpc
meeting.
We
should
move
this
to
the
project
status,
repo
and
add
process
process
in
the
readme,
which
includes
projects
to
find
their
desired
status
themselves
and
projects
ask
for
cpc
approval
of
the
roadmap.
A
So
I
think
there's
maybe
some
work
to
be
done
here,
but
otherwise
the
bulk
of
it
is
there.
If
anybody
wants
to
take
a
look
comment,
otherwise
get
involved,
please
do
so.
Anybody
got
anything
else
on
that.
B
I
think
timmy's
asking
a
good
question
about
this,
which
is
in
the
chat
which
is
about
the
growth
plan
for
emeritus
projects
that
want
to
move
to
at
large,
it's
and
and
to
timmy's
point.
That's
probably
pretty
uncommon,
that's
probably
true,
but
theoretically
our
framework
would
allow
for
that,
and
so
you
know
do
we
want
something
to
handle
that
case
too.
D
B
Right,
I
mean
it's
theoretically
possible
that
a
project
that
a
maintainer
group
has
decided
is,
you
know
they're
they're
done
they're
ready
to
kind
of
move
on,
they
feel
what
they
can
do
for
the
project
is,
is
no
more
and
they
want
to
to
defecate
that
it.
B
We
do
kind
of
imagine
a
path
for
another
person
from
the
community
to
come
along
and
say:
oh
actually,
I've
got
a
new
vision
for
this
project
and
to
revitalize
it
in
some
way,
not
likely
to
happen
for
certainly
our
current
emeritus
projects,
but
something
that
could
again
theoretically.
A
A
Yeah,
it
makes
sense
all
right,
cool
cool
cool
cool.
Thank
you.
The
next
item
in
the
agenda
is
add
examples
of
successful
applications.
Toby's
got
this
started
with
amp.
I
think
robin
you're
gonna,
maybe
get
another
one
or
two
and
add
it.
G
A
G
A
A
So
next
up
is
issue:
632
provide
implementation
guidance
for
dcocla.
This
has
been
around
since
september
1st,
and
I
think
we
lean
on
brian
for
moving
forward
on
this
one.
I'm
not
sure
flying's
on
here
today
is
not
so
we'll
leave
this
one
aside.
Unless
anybody
has
anything
to
add.
A
D
I
think
last
time
I
just
remember,
toby
was
asking
if
we
should
do
something
in
parallel
with
this,
and
I
think
most
people
were
comfortable
with
saying:
let's,
let's
look
at
the
moving
forward
on
the
growth
plans
and
then,
if
you
know,
if
somebody
has
time
and
wants
to
sort
of
run
off,
you
know
run
ahead
with
the
the
overall
review
process.
That
would
that
would
be
good,
but
in
everybody
seemed
comfortable
with
us,
focusing
on
that
on
the
you
know,
getting
the
growth
plans
in
place
and
pushing
that
piece
forward
to
start
with.
D
A
All
right
so
we'll
leave
this
one.
For
now,
as
is
great
michael,
landed,
the
the
next
item,
the
governance
changes
for
collaboration
network.
A
Yeah
no
worries
great
and
then
the
last
item.
I
don't
know
if
somebody
moved
these
around
or
if
it
just
worked
out
that
way.
But
the
last
item
is
to
simplify
the
proposal
process.
This
is
issue
635.
This
is
the
issue
we're
going
to
spend
some
time
on
miles.
You
know
had
a
couple
of
suggestions
here.
I
was
looking
at
it
earlier
today
too,
and
I
think
sendal
clarified
some
of
the
verbiage,
which
makes
sense
to
me.
A
So
if
we
want
to
we
can
we
can
dig
into
this
process
and
probably
I
could
imagine
having
a
pr
out
of
it
and
move
along.
A
Cool,
how
do
we
want
to
do
this?
Does
anybody
want
to
like
open
up
the
staging
process,
md
and
and
capture
things
as
we
discuss
them
and
pr
them
at
the
at
the
end.
B
I
like
that,
it
feels
like
it
could
get
us
to
yeah,
plus
one
to
that.
Okay,.
A
State
staging
process
is
the
md
file
yeah,
you
got
it.
Oh
cool
nice
right
in
the
editor.
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
miles
was
saying
is
that
stage,
zero
and
stage
one
are
confusing.
A
I
I
and
perhaps
just
changing
the
names
of
these
would
be,
would
clarify
it.
When
I
was
looking
at
it
earlier,
I
mean
combining
what
miles
was
saying
and
and
the
text
here,
I
think
of
it
as
stage
zero,
as
I
think
the
term
miles
used
was
incubating
proposal
like
basically
you're
working
on
this,
and
I
think
that
it
may
pull
some
of
the
language
from
the
draft
proposal
text.
A
But
I
guess
what
what
what
what
I
was
taking,
what
miles
and
cindel
were
saying
is
stage.
Zero
is
like
incubating
proposal.
This
is
being
worked
on.
You
know
it
could
start
with
just
a
an
md
file.
To
kind
of
you
know
kick
off
the
the
work
on
it,
but
still
it's
kind
of
stays
in
this
incubating
proposal
stage
stage
one
would
be
essentially
in
cpc
review.
You
know
we're
we're
looking
at
it
commenting
on
it
and
the
end
of
that
stage
would
be
cpc.
A
Approval
and
then,
if
necessary
stage,
two
would
be
in
board
review
and
then
stage
three.
I
don't
even
know
if
it
should
be
a
stage,
but
it's
just
like
complete.
D
Right
now,
we've
had
like
part
of
the
the.
I
don't
know
what
the
right
word
but
challenge.
I
think
in
the
past
is
that
each
of
the
stages
required
a
new
pr
and
that
doesn't
like
I,
you
know
when
you
said
well,
we
could
have
a
in
board
review
stage,
yes,
but
having
to
create
a
new
pr
and
move.
It
doesn't
seem
like
that's
useful.
B
Okay,
I
agree
with
that.
I
feel
like
we
can
simplify
one
way
we
can
simplify
the
process
is
through
using
labels
or
something
as
opposed
to
the
pr's.
A
I
I
that
idea
sounds
appealing
to
me,
but
I
don't
know
in
terms
of
like
I
mean
I
guess
the
only
real
I
I
guess
I
don't
see
really
any
reason
to
kind
of
move
it.
You
just
have
to
create
a
pr
it's
incubating.
Then
it's
in
cpc
review
and
then
it's
in
board
review.
I
mean
this
is
all
I
think
could
be
managed.
A
D
And
so,
if
you,
if
you're
going
to
have
disagreement-
and
there
is
some
value
to
being
able
to
land
some
land,
something
earlier,
which
is
you
know
clearly
a
we
haven't
agreed
yet,
but
we're
actually
capturing
and
landing
stuff
that
we
have.
I'm
not
so
sure
that
really
applies
to
most
of
the
proposals
that
come
through
nowadays,
yeah.
B
I
was
just
gonna
say:
michael
was
right
that
we,
we
definitely
borrowed
this
from
tc39
staging
through
the
bootstrapping
kind
of
period
and
initial
phase
there,
mostly
because
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
everybody
had
a
chance
to
weigh
in,
and
you
know
and
just
sort
of
like
norm
a
bit,
and
I
think
we've
really
done
that
in
our
process,
and
so
we
can
make
it
lighter
weight.
A
Yeah
that
makes
sense
and
and
miles
just
joined
as
well
miles
we're
talking
about
whether
we
need
to
even
use
more
than
one
pr
and
if
we
could
in
instead
perhaps
use
labels.
As
you
know,
incubating
proposal
in
cpc
review
and
then
like.
May
I
don't
know
if
we
would
need
like
a
cpc,
approved
label
necessarily
but
in
in
board
review
if
that
was
necessary
as
well
and
just
keep
it
in
one
pr.
I.
H
I
think
that
there's
a
lot
of
value
in
allowing
for
multiple
pr's
and
iteration
prs
can
become
stale
over
time,
especially
if
proposals
need
to
touch
multiple
parts.
So
I
think
that,
like
at
least
one
of
the
things
from
the
staging
process
that
we
have
right
now
that
I
like,
but
not
necessarily
the
implementation,
but
just
the
idea
is
that,
like
things
that
we're
working
on
or
ideas
that
we
have
can
land
can
be,
there
can
be
reviewed,
can
be
copy.
Edited
can
have
suggestions
put
against
it.
H
H
A
It's
in
the
chat,
michael,
if
you
want
to
click
on
it,
it's
issue.
635.
Oh,
are
you
talking
about
the
initial
one
or
this
year.
H
Yeah,
so
it's
like
incubating
proposal,
waiting,
cpc
approval,
waiting,
board
approval
proposal
accepted
so
really
there
would
just
be
like
incubated
and
accepted
as
the
two
categories
and
then
cpc
approval
versus
board
approval
could
be
like
different
phases
of
acceptance
that
are
needed.
So
I
would
imagine,
like
you,
could
open
a
pr
to
incubating
proposals
to
add.
H
H
It
goes
in
incubating
and
then
like
when
you're
ready
for
approval,
you
open
a
pr
moving
it
to
approved
and
then
that's
where
we
apply
the
labels
and
get
the
appropriate
approval
to
move
the
proposal
forward
and
the
cpc
could
be
used
to
determine
whether
or
not
like
board
approval
is
needed.
For
example,.
D
D
H
Especially
like
some
of
the
proposals
in
the
past
has
required,
like
creating
multiple
artifacts,
for
example,
so
being
able
like
so
sarah,
for
example.
I
I
think
it's
safe
to
call
you
the
champion
of
javascript
landia
right
now,
but
it's
like,
I
see,
there's
a
lot
of
value
in
like
landing
the
proposal
that
we
have
up
till
now
and
then
continuing
to
land
like
resources
and
assets
as
we
want
to
like
build
consensus
around
them
and
then
kind
of
like
when
it's
ready
to
like
stamp
the
whole
thing.
H
H
When
it's
accepted,
I
think
that's
getting
a
little
bike
sheddy,
but
I
do
think
that,
like
being
able
to
land
things
while
they're,
either
like
in
draft
or
incubating
or,
however
we
want
to
frame,
it
is
like
important
for,
like
faster
iteration,
and
you
know,
cycling
on
the
work.
E
It
seems
like
there's
like
a
yeah,
I
agree
with
yet
plus
one
to
all
of
that.
I
think
it
seems
like.
Instead
of
that,
there
seems
to
be.
E
If
I
were
to
outline
the
stages,
it
would
be
like
number
one
suggestion
like
does
this,
like
person
has
an
idea
suggests
it
and
then
I
get,
and
then
I
don't
know
if
that's
different
than
the
landing
the
proposal
or
if
that
needs
to
be
outlined,
it's
different
and
then
like
there's
the
time
that
people
are
iterating
on
it
and
then
there's
like
cpc
approval
and
then
board
approval,
which
I
think
is
kind
of.
E
H
I
think,
but
I
could
be
wrong
when
we
originally
put
this
together.
H
It
was
definitely
a
waterfall,
whereas,
like
approved
by
the
cpc,
then
approved
by
the
board,
and
a
lot
of
that
came
from
the
way
in
which
historically,
we've
done
like
charter
changes
in
ways
in
which
I've
seen
that
be
successful
versus
not
successful,
and
I
think
there
are
some
people
on
the
call
right
now
who
might
have
memories
of
some
of
the
charter
changes
from
the
node
project
just
taking
substantially
longer
than
they
needed
to,
because
if
we
didn't
have
the
language
exactly
the
way
that
it
needed
to
be
with
approval
from
everyone
on
the
project
side
before
it
went
to
the
board,
you
couldn't
really
get
the
proper,
like
legal
review
and
board
sign
off
if
we're
still
like
moving
bits
around
so
correct
and
people
remembering
that.
E
H
H
I
think
in
actuality,
though,
since
a
lot
of
these
proposals
haven't
generally,
but
sometimes
they
do
but
haven't
generally
required,
like
charter
changes
or
bylaw
changes,
treating
that
as
a
waterfall
in
most
cases
is
not
even
necessarily
needed,
since
it's
more
of
a
board
fyi
than
a
board
approval,
and
so
like,
I
almost
feel
like
the
approval
phase.
I
like
it
almost
more
as
like
a
product
launch
with
different
stakeholders.
H
H
Sign
off
from
the
cpc,
but
I
see
that
as
like
a
single
sign-off
phase
with
multiple
partners,
as
opposed
to
like
a
waterfall,
because
I
think
that
those
separate
stages
of
the
waterfall
which,
like
essentially
was
the
difference
between
stage
two
and
stage
three
before
just
created,
unnecessary,
friction
and
caused
things
to
be
slower
and
honestly.
Confusing.
A
I
wonder
about,
and-
and
this
may
kind
of,
lower
the
hurdle
to
proposing
something.
But
what
if
we
started
with
the
initial
proposal
is
an
issue
and
you
kind
of
go
through
what
you
are
proposing
in
an
issue
and
then
you
have
a
pr
for
working
through
that
proposal.
H
H
But
one
of
the
things
that's
nice
with
discussions
is
that
you
can
have
like
one
discussion
with
many
threads.
So,
whereas
in
an
issue,
you're
kind
of
like
a
single
thread,
discussions
can
have
multiple
threads,
which
I
think
is
slightly
slightly
better
for
like
a
brainstorming
phase,
so
like
in
theory,
a
workflow
could
look
like
bring
an
idea
to
a
discussion,
so
we
can
kind
of
come
up
with
like
what
a
solution
might
look
like
propose
the
solution
via
an
issue
which
then
in
turn
becomes
a
pull
request,
which
has
like
the
actual
things.
H
H
So
I'd
be
concerned
that
we'd
be
introducing
like
lots
of
steps
that
we
don't
necessarily
need
to
follow
in
order
to
build
consensus
as
a
group-
and
I
think,
starting
as
an
issue
versus
a
pull
request,
especially
for
like
a
proposal
could
be
a
step
back
because
there's
no
way
for
people
to
really
comment
in
line
and
offer
suggested
language
changes.
H
It
would
almost
potentially
be
better
to
say,
let's
make
like
a
hackmd
or
a
google
doc
to
scratch.
This
out
in
before
we
open
the
pr
but
like
jumping
between
platforms,
is
not
necessarily
great
either.
H
So
I'm
in
I'm
inclined
to
sticking
with
just
what
we
have
right
now,
which
is
like
opening
a
pull
request
following
a
template,
but
I'm
not
necessarily
married
to
it.
That's
just
kind
of
my.
A
My
gut
sure
no,
and
I
think
that
that
that
that
makes
sense
too,
and
so,
but
still
the
the
idea
would
be.
The
initial
pull
request
is
like
I'm
proposing
this
as
an
idea,
and
people
can
iterate
on
that
to
whatever
extent
and
then
you
would
open
up
another
pull
request
to
do
more
work
on
it
like
I
just
want
to
kind
of
have
clarity
on.
H
And-
and
I
think
I
think
we
may
even
benefit
from
removing
the
word
stage
from
this
right
altogether
and
maybe
just
change
it
into
like
proposal
process
or
and
like,
and
it
would
just
be
like
draft
proposal
like
creating
a
draft
proposal
and
getting
a
proposal
accepted
and
so
like.
The
steps
are
really
like.
Fill
out.
The
template
open,
a
pr
that
puts
it
into
the
drafts
in
its
own
folder
work
on
it
until
you
feel
like
it's
ready
to
be
approved
and
then
open
a
pr
to
like
get.
D
E
D
E
H
E
D
It's
like
hey,
not
everybody
agrees.
We
need
to
do
this,
but
we
want
to
actually
get
something
into
the
repo
so
that
you
know
it's
more
visible.
Then
multiple
people
can
do
prs
and
you
know
so.
If
it's
something
that's
going
to
take
six
months
to
get
consensus
on,
it
actually
does
make
sense
to
get
you
know.
Interim
versions
landed
in
the
repo.
H
H
Maybe
there
are
some
small
things
that
can
changes
that
can
happen.
Most
of
those
can
probably
just
come
as
like
pr's
against
the
repo,
but
generally,
when
we're
thinking
about
proposals
they
might
require
bylaw
changes,
they
might
require
charter
changes,
they
might
require
budget,
they
probably
require
some
degree
of
documentation.
H
So
I
think,
like
the
thought
process
here
at
least
is
like,
and
maybe
we
need
to
pare
down
the
template.
But
it's
like
putting
together
a
template
and
starting
a
proposal
is
incubating,
should
be
something
that
you
can
do
in
like
15
minutes
like
I
have
an
idea,
and
I
want
to
kick
it
off
and
I
want
to
get
it
going.
A
H
I
I
think
that,
and
perhaps
I've
done
myself
a
disservice
that
sounds
far
more
complicated
than
what
I'm
trying
to
suggest.
H
H
It's
like
the
incubating
places
where
it's
like
kind
of
for
medically
sealed
and
being
held
until
it's
ready
to
go
and
then,
when
you're
going
to
accept
it.
Let's
say
the
acceptance
includes
like
a
change
to
the
bylaws
and
a
change
to
the
charter
and
a
change
to
some
other
things
like
that.
Pr
will
have
all
those
changes
in
it
and
they
just
land
where
they
need
to
be
for
the
thing
to
be
implemented
so
like
that
incubating
place
is
really
just
so
that
we
can
have
faster
iteration
cycles.
H
Does
something
like
that
even
need
to
go
to
the
through
the
proposal
process
at
all?
I
guess
is
more
of
my
thought
process
like
if
you've
got
something
small
that
directly
changes,
something
even
like
the
charter,
and
you
can
build
consensus
around
it
in
a
pr
like
you,
don't
need
a
proposal
for
it
like.
I
think
the
proposals
were
at
least
when
we
were
originally
talking
about.
It
was
much
more
focused
around
like
larger
initiatives,
things
that
require
budget
things
that
require
us
to
commit
to
doing
things
that
we're
not
currently
doing
like.
H
And
that's
good,
like
I
would
say
right
now,
aside
from
the
work
that's
being
done
on
the
sponsorship
program,
I
don't
know
what
other
super
active
work
necessarily
requires
like
this
level
of
process.
E
It
sounds
like
we're
describing
three.
I
just
want
to
confirm
what
I'm
hearing
it
sounds
like
what
we're
describing
is
three
phases,
the
first
one
being
incubating
where
people
are
iterating,
possibly
in
a
github
discussion.
I
really
like
that.
I
haven't
used
that
yet
I
like
testing
those
new
features.
The
second
phase
is
an
optional.
Well,
maybe
an
optional
phase,
maybe
not
an
optional
phase
of
ready
for
stakeholder
approval,
whoever
the
stakeholder
approval
is
and
the
third
one
is
published.
D
E
A
My
internet's
a
little
goofy
here.
So
sorry,
if
I
cut
you
off
there,
sarah
to
me
it
seems
like
there
are.
There
are
two
phases
in
essence:
there's
the
the
draft
or
incubating
and
then
ready
for
like
official
review,
which
is
when
you
move
things
into
place
and
then
kind
of
approved
is
like
well
sort
of
you
know,
as
long
as
you
get
past
two
approved
is
is
like
kind
of
yeah,
that's
where
you
are,
which
I
which
I
like
and
then
so.
A
If
I
understand
correctly
too
in
the
in
the
incubating
phase,
you
can
do
multiple
pr's,
you
can
keep
iterating,
you
can
kind
of
like
snapshot
like
okay
cool.
We
agree
on
this.
Here
are
the
questions
that
remain
I'm
going
to
capture
those
questions
in
a
new
pr.
You
know-
and
I
think
sarah
you
did
a
little
bit
of
this
in
the
recent
one
sponsorship
which
we
were
trying
to
follow
some
staging
program,
but
I
think
that
that
makes
sense
you
can
do
as
many
pr's
as
you
want
and
just
snapshot.
A
H
Yeah,
I
guess
yeah.
I
guess
like
the
only
thing
that
that
were
that
we're
trying
to
figure
out
right
now
is
like
if
a
proposal
can
go
directly
to
getting
accepted
and
not
require
this
incubating
phase
at
all,
and
my
gut
on
that
is
being
like
anything,
that's
small
enough
that
it
doesn't
require
an
incubating
phase,
probably
doesn't
require
the
proposal
process
right
and,
I
think
sorry
go
ahead.
I
I
I
was
gonna
say
I
I
also
think
to
to
sarah's
point:
have
we
seen
something
that
goes
from
being
proposed
to
instantly
accepted?
Yet
I
I
I
don't
think
we
have.
I
could
be
right.
I
Yeah-
and
I
guess
I
I
like
doing
doing
that
tweaking-
is
where
you
do
it
in
in
draft
and
then
once
we're
read
like
we
can
kind
of
do
that
without
having
to
do
do
the
acceptance,
which
I
think
is
like
fair.
I
D
I
Raised
right
now
on
discussions
is
that
they
don't
have
labels
yet,
so
we
can't
like
agenda
them
up
so
that
that
might
be
just
something
we
want
to
be
aware
of.
B
Might
actually
say
that
that's
a
strength
and-
and
the
reason
is
that
one
benefit
of
our
existing
system
is
that
it
does
sort
of
help
organize
when
and
where
specific
decisions
have
been
and
made.
And
so
I
think,
as
I
listen
and
one
thing
that
I
want
to
make
sure
we
don't
lose,
is
the
clarity
that
can
be
driven
from
understanding
the
process
and
what
what
state
things
are
in
because
outside
that
you
know
it
can
be
hard
to
know
like.
B
Oh,
what's
really
the
status
of
this
particular
idea,
and-
and
you
know
that's
that's
one
thing
just
to
that.
I'm
thinking
about.
D
H
But,
but
I
get,
I
guess
with
that
in
mind
depending
would
be
like
we
would
have
a
list
of
all
the
proposals
that
are
in
progress.
That
would
be
easy
to
look
at
and
then
in
theory,
but
you
can
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
a
proposal
that
doesn't
need
to
go
through
this
process,
because
it
can
be
like
instantly
accepted
in
like
one
week.
H
You
would
never
really
need
to
look
at
where
its
progress
is
because
it
would
just
land
and
if
it
were
to
take
longer
than
one
week,
we'd
probably
tell
them
to
just
go
through
this
process
but
jory
to
make
sure
I'm
maybe
not
like
skating
over
the
point.
Was
it
the
various
stages
of
progress
of
a
proposal
that
you
think
we're
losing
right
now,
potentially.
B
Yeah
so
when
I
think
about
like,
like
to
your
point,
a
small
small
thing
that
we
can
reasonably
and
get
quick
consensus
on
and
execute
in
a
short
period
of
time,
let's,
like
super
duper
speed
that
up
let's
make
that
faster,
but
when
I
think
about
a
larger
proposal
like
the
supporter
program
proposal
by
one
example
and
that's
one
that
really
were
not
for
sarah's
excellent
and
championing
of
this
particular
topic,
there's
quite
a
few
different
miscellaneous
floating
parts,
and
so
it's
really
on
her
as
the
as
the
champion
to
make
sure
that
the
status
is
really
well
communicated
and
in
conjunction
with
the
process,
I
think
that's
fairly
clear,
and
so
you
know
when
I
think
about
tools
we
can
use,
and
you
know,
process
changes
we
could
make.
B
I
think
things
that
make
it
more
clear
for
people
to
say:
oh
yeah
cool,
it's
this.
You
know
and
that's
just
great.
That's
that's
all.
E
Yeah,
I
think
the
one
I
think
thanks
thanks
story.
I
think
the
one
risk
we
run
with
changing
to
this
model.
I
know
we're
almost
that
time
is
there's
no
clear
done
and
I
think
if
I
were
new
and
even
when
I
like,
I
think
with,
I
don't
think
that
was
solved
with
the
other
system
to
be
clear
of
the
the
stages
rather,
but
I
think,
as
part
of
this,
if
we
can
also
add
defining
what
done
looks
like,
I
think
that
would
be
helpful.
H
Something
sarah
and
joy
that
we
could
do
there
and
explore
when
we
have
a
little
bit
more
time.
Is
I'm
thinking
a
little
bit
about,
like
you
know
like
doing
production
services,
it's
alpha,
then
it's
beta.
Then
it's
generally
available
or
like
for
releases.
You
do
an
alpha
beta
release
candidate.
Maybe
there's
a
way
that,
like
we
have
incubating
proposals,
but
we
have
like
different
labels
that
we
can
apply
to
an
incubating
proposal
depending
on
where
it's
at.
I
guess.
H
Maybe
that
does
or
doesn't
work
for
things
that
are
just
in
a
folder
versus
a
pull
request.
So
I
need
to
think
on
this
a
little
bit
more,
but
maybe
maybe
it
would
be
helpful
to
like
have
kind
of
like,
like
a
checklist
of
things.
H
Actually,
a
checklist
could
be
a
very
good
way
to
do
this,
where,
like
every
proposal
at
the
top,
has
like
a
checklist
of
things
that
you
need
to
do
before
you
can
go,
get
approved
and
so
like,
following
which
of
those
checks
are
done,
could
help
you
know,
and
that
could
do
a
combination
of
like
jory,
for
what
you
were
asking
for
of
being
able
to
see
like
how
far
along
something
is
and
sarah
for
what
you
were
asking
for,
which
is
having
like
a
clearer
definition
of
done,
like
I
might
be
able
to
accomplish
a
little
bit
of
both
of
those
and
we're
at
time.
E
D
H
And,
and
maybe
something
that
we
could
do
also
here,
just
kind
of
thinking
through
it
depending
joe's,
maybe
for
every
proposal
we
could
have
a
consistently
open
pr.
That's
just
like
that
checklist
with
all
the
stakeholders
signing
off
on
on
it
or
something
like
that.
Maybe
we
can
think
through
a
way
of
like
creatively
using
a
pr
or
an
issue
to
track
the
progress,
and
then
maybe
project
boards,
or
something
like
that
or
actually
a
project
board
with
categories
could
do
it
too.
Okay,
I'm
just
vomiting
from.
A
Well,
I
think
this
was
helpful.
I
think
we
made
progress,
maybe
maybe
we
can
have
a
pr
open
and
iterate
in
there,
and
we
can
try
to
take
some
time
next
week
as
well
to
to
try
and
close
this
up.
D
A
Yeah
yeah,
I
might
take
a
stab
at
a
pr,
but
we'll
see,
sounds
good.
I
have
so
much
to
do,
but
I
might
cool
all
right.
Well,
that's
helpful.
I
appreciate
everybody
joining
and
we'll
talk
more
about
this
next
week
and
yeah
thanks.
Everybody
cheers.