►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - June 19, 2019
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
B
Thanks
Brian
thanks
everybody
for
joining,
don't
forget
you
if
you're
in
the
zoom
here,
add
your
name
to
the
to
the
minutes.
Google
Doc
and
hopefully
some
folks
can
help
take
notes
as
we
work
through
our
agenda
items
and
I'm
also
noticing
Myles.
You
added
a
couple
of
things
at
the
bottom
of
the
meeting
issue,
issue
209
and
the
cross
project.
Council.
If
you
could
help
me,
remember
to
get
those
in
as
well
so
do
we
have
anything
we
want
to
discuss
before
we
get
into
the
agenda
items
and
let.
C
B
B
I
believe
that
there
so
the
issue
is
issue
199
and
then
the
changes,
the
update
to
the
TSC
charter
is
issued
698
in
the
TSC
repo
or
not
issue.
Yes,
yes,
issue,
that's
the
issue
and
then
there's
also
a
pull
request.
That
is
what
is
being
you
know
that
the
topic
here
I'll
add
that
pull
request
into
the
chat.
There
are
some
plus
ones,
some
LG
teams
miles.
Do
you
have
anything?
You
I
think
that
you
owe
actually
Michael
started.
This
is
Michael
on
the
call.
Is
he
at
the
TT
SC
meeting.
D
Everything
on
this
charter
is
ready
to
go.
There
was
like
a
couple
moments
that
was
added
by
Chris
Borchers,
but
those
seem
to
be
on
the
up-and-up
we
have
got.
You
know
from
the
CPP
I'm,
seeing
one
two
three
four
voting
members
who
have
signed
off
on
it,
since
this
is
a
charter
change
when
they
require
either.
You
know
a
meeting
with
quorum
in
consensus
or
a
little
bit
more
of
like
oversight
on
it.
D
I
don't
know
exactly
how
we
want
to
handle
this
for
charter
changes,
and
perhaps
we
can
block
on
this
for
now,
but
we
definitely
need
to
ensure
that
you
know
the
approval
of
charters
and
the
changes
of
charters
are
done
consistently,
and
this
is
something
that
the
CPC
has
been
chartered
by
the
Board
of
Directors
to
oversee.
So
you
know,
I
think
that
we
should,
at
the
very
least,
worked
out
the
the
rules
of
consensus
and
and
how
we
move
something
like
this
forward
before
just
landing.
B
D
I
think
that
we
might
already
have
that
I
think
that's
one
of
those
pull
requests
that
I
added
as
a
last
minute
addition.
So
if
you
look
at
number
205
I
guess
this
is
for
landing.
Prs,
though,
so
this
is
just
governance
over
landing
PR,
so
I
can
make
an
issue
and
like
we
need
explicit
governance
for
charters.
B
D
We
should
wait.
I
know
that
it's
frustrating,
and
especially
when
we're
dealing
with
things
like
charters
that
are
out
of
date
and
are
incorrect,
that's
something
that
should
be
being
changed
quickly,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
you
know
like
started
as
the
voting
members
overseeing
everything.
I
do
not
think
that
it's
appropriate
for
us
to
be
making
decisions
without
quorum
of
that
group.
You.
B
Know
I
I
agree
that
you
know
at
the
very
least,
the
process
should
be
clear
and
there
should
be
following
up
okay,
so
we
will
kind
of
punch
on
this
first
agenda
item
and
and
work
out
this
issue
that
Mouse
is
creating
on
process
for
charter
changes
for
the
CPC
C,
so
moving
forward.
We
have
the
project
assets
repo,
if
I
remember
correctly,
Brian
yeah.
Your
last
comments
six
days
ago
was
that
you're
gonna
hold
off
for
trademark
guidelines,
getting
updated
and
and
some
other
items
do.
You
have
an
update
for
us,
Brian
sure.
A
A
Trademark
guidance
for
the
two
organizations,
because,
right
now
we
still
have
the
the
guidance
that
came
in
from
the
JSF
as
well.
What
note
foundation
used
I'd
like
to
have
all
this
stuff,
absolutely
ready
to
go
so
that
the
first
version
is
the
right
version,
and
this
is
its
with
with
legal
counsel
right
now
to
get
this
put
together.
So
once
it
gets
ready,
then
I
will
ping
the
thread.
Maybe
we
can
figure
out
what
the
appropriate
name
would
be
for
this,
and
then
I
can
just
push
everything
up.
A
I
do
want
to
say
thank
you
to
everybody
who
got
back
to
me
with
artwork
and
assets
and
who
confirmed
that
the
artwork
that's
there
is
the
correct
artwork
and
everything
else.
The
idea
here
going
forward
is
I
can
get
this
started,
but
as
projects
change,
their
logos
or
change,
colors
or
whatever
the
case
may
be,
I
want
to
make
sure
that
you
can
also
change
these
things
as
well,
so
that
we
don't
get
stale.
B
A
A
B
B
D
That
it's
I
think
that
is
good
to
go.
All
the
comments
have
been
addressed.
Outstanding
Clements
were
yeah,
so
that's
resolved
now
and
we
had
that
explicitly
resolved
in
the
call.
I
think
that
this
is
ready
to
land
as
it
is
right
now
and
we
can
iterate
on
it.
At
the
very
least,
this
is
far
more
accurate
than
what
we
have
right
now
yeah,
so
I'm
gonna
go
ahead
and
land
that
right
now,
unless
anyone
objects
plus.
B
B
D
To
augment
that,
like,
realistically,
there
isn't
much
of
a
difference
between
a
regular
member
and
Observer
aside
from
like
raising
your
hand
and
putting
your
name
on
a
list
right
now,
so
well,
I
think
it
like.
This
does
require
us
to
like
revisit
the
Charter,
and
we
think
these
things
but
I
think
a
very
high-level.
The
question
might
be
better
as
framed
as
are
they
limited
to
voting
members,
these
positions,
or
not.
D
G
D
So
so
it
seems
like
that.
Perhaps
we
should
just
move
forward
with.
What's
in
the
Charter
and
I
think
to
Mateos
point,
one
of
the
things
we
can
work
on
right
away
is
fixing
the
Charter
itself
taking
that
to
the
board
getting
that
approved,
and
you
know
if
the
person
in
the
chair
role
feels
it's
appropriate.
They
can
step
down
immediately
reapply
and
off
another
election
with
a
broader
set
of
candidates.
D
E
D
E
C
Yeah
I
think
I
think
this
is
pretty
pretty
clear
and
we're
gonna
move
forward
with,
what's
explicitly
in
the
Charter.
If
we
want
to
revisit
this
and
open
these
rolls
up
to
non-voting
members,
that's
something
we
can
choose
to
take
up
and
take
the
Charter
revisions
to
the
board
later.
If
that's
something
we
want
to
do
and
move
from
there.
G
E
I,
at
least,
would
be
happy
for
us
to
consider
an
amendment
to
the
Charter
about
relaxing
this
particular
thing,
but
I
would
be
far
happier
for
us
to
also
first
decide
on
having
a
chair.
If
we
only
have
one
applicable
one
valid
applicant
for
the
chairs
position
and
then
basically
then
get
to
the
situation
where
we
get
to
reconsider
whether
we
should
have
a
reelection
of
the
chair
position.
I.
B
A
E
Hang
on
sorry
we're
supposed
to
select
this
by
consensus,
and
we
should
be
explicit
about
doing
so.
So
you
know
these
are
the
nominees
roof
of
which
are
the
only
nominees
for
this.
So
let's
you
know
make
sure
that
we
do
have
consensus,
at
least
in
within
the
people
gathered
in
this
meeting,
for
this
decision
to
take
place.
Okay,.
C
H
G
B
B
B
B
C
If
I
can
weigh
in
with
what
my
understanding
of
this
was,
we
were
going
to
ask
anybody
who
wanted
to
be
considered
a
regular
member
of
the
CPC
to
issue
a
pull
request,
adding
their
names
to
the
readme,
but
that
was
blocked
by
some
by
the
readme
pull
request
which
we
just
unlocked,
and
so
I
was
going
to
preserves.
Presuming
that
the
next
move
would
be
to
start
directing
those
who
want
to
be
considered
regular
members
to
issue
those
for
us.
C
B
B
D
Far
as
I
know
that
that
that
is
accurate,
but
I
mean
to
be
clear.
A
lot
of
this
stuff
with
the
regular
members
is
kind
of
I
think
that
we
should
approach
this
with
the
regular
member
is
somewhat
similar
to
how
we
were
just
discussing
how
we
should
be
approaching
the
election.
A
lot
of
these
things
were
drafted
very
much
in
a
vacuum,
not
realizing
how
this
would
and
I
think
that
you
know
like
especially
for
these
things
like
membership.
It
makes
sense
for
us
to
be
pragmatic
about
what
makes
sense,
so
it.
D
B
C
B
D
B
You
miles
it's
awesome
great,
so
that
will
be
kind
of
a
bit
of
you
know
something
that
others
can
follow
suit.
They
can
look
to
to
see
how
it's
done
and
and
others
folks
can
can
get
involved
as
well.
Jory
you
volunteered
to
reach
out
to
some
of
the
projects
about
the
previous
issue.
I,
don't
want
to
lean
on
you
to
do
these
sorts
of
things.
So
do
we
I,
guess
I'll
ask
the
group:
do
we
have
a
process
for
getting
a
message
out
to
the
projects?
What's
our
process
there.
C
B
C
I
could
just
make
a
quick
request
to
the
group
who
may
be
interested
in
doing
that
outreach
to
your
project
communities
specifically
doing
some
outreach
to
those
from
underrepresented
groups
would
be
quite
beneficial,
I
think
to
our
effort
as
I.
Look
at
our
composition.
I
would
love
to
see
a
bit
more
diversity.
Oh
my
god,
yeah.
B
C
Think
it
I
think
it
can
be
closed
today.
I,
don't
know
that
this
is
something
that
we
necessarily
well
like
I
guess.
Let
me
ask
this
question
this
nomination.
Acceptance
of
regular
members
isn't
something
that
is
going
to
be
happening
in
some
kind
of
time
box.
This
will
be
sort
of
a
rolling
thing
if
I
understand
correctly,
so
it
would
make
sense
that
we
can
close
this
yeah.
D
The
only
thing,
that's
hanging
that
that
I'm
thinking
about
is
so
the
charters
explicit
that
all
one
needs
to
do
is
open
a
PR,
Oh
Dawson
just
showed
up,
as
did
Aguirre
sorry
about
leaving
you
there
just
promoted
them
the
the
charters
explicit
about
what
people
can
do
to
nominate
themselves,
but
I
guess
it's
not
explicit
in
Jamaica
documented
in
governance,
and
maybe
we
want
to
wait
until
that
lands
before
we
close.
This
issue
is
what
is
the
approval
process
of
those
nominations
and
how
do
they
get
landed?
D
I
D
So
something
like
the
existence
of
regular
members
and
what
the
qualifications
to
be
a
regular
member
are
would
likely
be
something
that
makes
sense
in
the
Charter.
But
the
explicit
process
or
how
someone
gets
nominated
as
well
as
how
someone
gets
approved,
might
make
more
sense
in
the
governance
document.
Yeah.
I
I
B
I
E
Think
we
might
be
interested
in,
in
particular
in
this,
in
streamlining
the
decisions
and
in
order
to
make
that
happen,
it
would
be
easiest
if
the
general
case
for
making
changes
would
include
a
way
of
getting
streamline
changes.
So
we
don't
need
to
explicitly
have
approval
in
meetings
for
every
little
thing
that
changes,
including
approving
regular
members,
but.
I
E
D
Stating
that
we
could
add
the
meeting
as
a
possible
way
of
doing
it
as
well
cool
that
yeah
last
thing
is
the
other.
Was
that,
like
we
had
it
in
there,
that
50%
of
the
voting
members
chiming
in
was
a
not
was
enough.
I
think
that
consensus
I
prefer
is
the
way
of
doing
it,
because
that
way,
like
consensus
means,
there
was
no
objections
which
is
different
than
like
waiting
for
50%
of
the
people
to
chime
in
I'm,
not
really
a
huge
fan
of
these
things
that
are
like
vote
counting
but
I'm,
not
gonna.
I
But
I'm
more
of
you
know
because
of
because
of
meetings
you
know
each
people
can
only
reach
a
certain
period,
see
only
so
many
people
can
make
the
meeting
that
it's
actually
more
consensus-building
to
say
it's
in
the
issue
and
it's
like
no
objections
in
72
hours.
That
way
whether
people
can
make
the
meeting
or
not.
They
can
see
the
issue
and
object
as
opposed
to
well.
Okay,
we
had
how
many
we
don't.
We
will
never
have
everybody
in
the
meeting
unlikely.
E
Way,
I
guess
I
we're
talking
about
205,
yeah,
yeah
205
and
the
process
there
and
I
think
what
would
be
good
is
for
us
to
have
clarity
on
the
way
that
the
process
different
in
205
is
a
way
to
definitely
have
an
indicator
of
consensus,
but
that
other
indicators
of
consensus
may
be
accepted
as
well,
especially
for
things
that
are.
Shall
we
say
of
lesser
importance
sounds
like
the
wrong
way
of
him
saying
it,
but
that's
I
hope
you
understand
what
I
mean
about,
for
example,
things
like
approving
regular
members.
E
E
D
Great
before
we
move
on
from
this
one,
I
just
opened
number
two
and
three:
it
literally
just
changes
the
title.
It
changes
the
link
to
no
longer
point
at
the
bootstrap
repo.
It
changes
the
list
of
invited
members
to
reflect
the
actual
invited
list
now
and
it
changes
the
label.
I
would
like
to
land
this
right
now,
because
that's
actually
a
pretty
glaring
and
accuracy
that
we
didn't
update
that
when
we
change
the
repo,
does
anyone
object
to
to
landing
that
PR.
D
D
I
I
B
B
You
know,
group
that
we
have
here,
we
decided
that's
everyone
who
was
nominated
would
be
accepted
to
bootstrap
this
cross
project
Council
for
the
first
year,
but
moving
forward.
We
expect
two
members
from
the
entirety
of
non
impact
projects
so
at
large
projects
and,
what's
the
other
one
well
yeah,
the
other
two
projects,
Thanks
and
gross
gross
there
we
go.
Thank
you
and.
B
E
B
B
I
I
think
we
just
said
it
wasn't
urgent,
since
we
had
basically
allowed
everybody
to
join
in
so
really
yeah.
That's
the
next
step
is
for
somebody
to
draft
proposal
and
I
guess:
there's
there's
really
the
you
know,
there's
the
proposals
in
there.
I
would
say
that
we
should
basically
just
write
up
something
proposing
one
of
those
two
and
then
we
can
have
the
PR
discussion
of
that
okay
I
can
take.
I
can
try
and
take
some
time
to
to
do
that
before
the
next
meeting.
B
B
I
Is
it
did
come
up,
I
mean
I,
think
we,
unfortunately,
we
rescheduled
the
TSE
meetings.
Since
we
started
the
review
of
what
meeting
times
we
would
be
good,
I,
see
I'm,
not
sure
it's
a
major
problem.
If
we
have
two
meeting
team
times
for
the
open
jeaious
like
if
we're
actually
alternating
between
two,
because
then
it's
like
once
every
six
weeks,
it'll
be
an
overlap
at
most.
I
I
B
B
D
There's
one
thing
that
is
worth
saying,
though:
we
have
31
different
projects
and
if
we
try
to
accommodate
all
of
the
times
for
all
the
projects
that
may
end
up
being
quite
difficult,
that
did
get
reflected
within
the
time.
Charts
like
one
thing
that
we
could
do
is
people
could
go
in
and
update
their
time
availabilities
in
there
based
on
the
new
TST
update,
and
we
could
look
to
see
if
that
changes.
The
time
we
land
on
I.
I
E
B
It
might
be
nice
and
maybe
jewelry
and
your
weekly
update,
if
you
could
surface
this,
that
the
folks
who
do
have
trouble
with
this
time,
particularly
you
know,
I
think
it
would
be
valuable
to
hear
from
people
that
have
trouble
at
this
time.
What
time
works
well
for
them
and
maybe
wait
the
decision
on
along
those
lines.
B
Great
okay
and
then
so
we
have
six
minutes
left.
The
the
last
issue
in
the
agenda
is
the
most
bootstrapped
work
on
the
project
board.
However,
I
wonder
if
we
should
jump
to,
you
know
miles
had
the
process
for
landing
PRS,
which
we
kind
of
discussed
and
then
the
upcoming
board
meeting.
Maybe
we
should
take
the
remaining
five
or
six
minutes
and
talk
about
the
upcoming
board
meeting
I.
J
H
B
B
E
D
There
are
public
sessions
that
are
that
are
broadcast
on
YouTube
that
you
can
watch.
The
private
sections
are
generally
embargoed.
Information
that
are
not
shared
outside
of
that,
although
board,
members
or
reps
are
able
to
request
to
share
specific
embargoed
information,
which
sometimes
ends
up
being
shared
still
within
a
smaller
group
of
people.
There
are
certain
things
that
are
not
constantly
updated,
such
as
finances
or
legal,
but
there
are
things
that
definitely
are
updated,
such
as
marketing
and
whatnot.
D
When
I
was
the
rep
one
of
the
ways
in
which
I
handled
this
was
by
giving
updates
after
board
meetings
to
the
mailing
list,
so
I
guess
Brian.
We
have
like
a
projects
mailing
list
correct.
We
do
so.
Perhaps
it
would
make
sense
for
the
CPC
director
to
updates
to
that
mailing
list
after
meetings
as
an
example
of
one
way
of
making
better
transparency.
A
J
J
C
Mailing,
this
is
something
we
were
discussing
quite
some
time
ago:
I'm,
sorry
for
jumping
in
and
being
a
tiny
bit
short,
but
we,
these
are
public
they're
on
list
open,
JSF
org.
You
can
see
the
different
lists
that
we
have
available
and
I've
been
encouraging
you
all
at
the
this
meeting
in
other
places
to
sign
up
for
them,
but
in
essence
anybody
can
sign
up.
We've
got
60,
something
I
think!
Oh,
that's
the
number
of
people
in
flight,
then.
Basically,
everybody
who
was
formerly
on
the
Jazz
foundation.
C
A
Chris's
updates
forthcoming
and
everything
else,
so
I'll
just
go
through
and
add
anybody
who's,
not
added
already
it's
a
simple
thing
for
me
to
do
on
the
backend,
but
in
general,
if
you
are
speaking
to
any
projects
or
any
participants
in
the
project,
we
really
should
be
pushing
them
to
this
list,
because
this
is
a
great
way
for
them
to
get
information
on
a
regular
basis.
A.
B
H
B
A
B
All
right,
great,
so
I
guess
that's
a
good
place
to
end.
We
are
at
101
or
minute
past
the
hour.
Does
anybody
have
anything
else
they
want
to
share
or
talk
about
briefly
brief.