►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - 2019-08-27
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
B
C
Know
I
just
wanted
to
share
for
the
community
that
there
is
a
standards
working
group
meeting
today
at
1800
UTC.
So
that's
2:00
p.m.
Eastern
and
you
can
see
the
/
standards
repo
for
the
meeting
issue
there
and
then
also
wanted
to
share
that.
There
is
a
recap
on
issue
number
307
in
the
cross
project
council
reach
repo
for
the
working
group
meeting
that
we
had
yesterday.
So
if
you
weren't
able
to
make
it,
you
can
see
links
to
the
reporting
and
notes
that
we
captured
from
that
session
and.
B
No
great,
then,
let's
dive
into
the
agenda
for
today's
meeting
I
wasn't
here
last
week,
so
I'm
still
kind
of
getting
caught
up
in
so
please
feel
free
to
jump
in
chime
in
if
I'm,
missing,
anything
or
I'm
lacking
anything
but
jewelry
hopefully
broke
out
the
agenda.
I
assume
it's
still
kind
of
corresponds
with
well,
regardless
working
from
the
Google
Doc.
Our
first
chunk
of
work
is
old
business
and
we
have
what
looks
like
two
issues
here
of
3:05
are
sorry
a
pull
request,
3:05
and
a
related
issue
of
289
opening
the
subtle.
A
Yeah,
just
this
one,
you
know
was
discussed
the
board,
although
it
still
needs
to
the
14
days
or
I,
guess
approval
by
the
consensus
if
we
have
quorum,
but
you
know
once
that
14
days
or
the
approval
happens,
then
we
can
send
it
back
to
the
board.
We
did
agree
to
do
those
through
email,
so
we
should
be
able
to
turn
around
without
having
to
wait
for
the
next
meeting
and
then
otherwise
that
one
looks
like
it's
ready
to
land.
Since
it's
just
substituting
some
terminology.
B
A
It
was
just
that
that
was
in
the
board
meeting
itself,
like
these
kind
of
things
need
to
be
grooved
and
it
was
just
agreed.
We
could
do
that
like
the
in
in
the
standard
governance
votes
can
take
place
through
email.
So
we,
as
opposed
to
saying,
hey,
we'll
wait
till
the
next
meeting
to
approve
this
one.
After
it's
approved,
we
agreed.
We
could
do
that
through
email
among
the
board
members
yeah.
B
A
A
B
B
D
E
Can
have
you
can
lean
on
Michael
and
I
to
to
then
lean
on
the
board
to
keep
those
emails
active
right,
yeah
great,
thank
you.
D
One
thing
one
I
think
is
worth
bringing
up
right
now,
though,
and
might
be
worth
digging
into
more
is
you
know
we
have
right
now,
one
two
three
only
for
CPC
voting
members
on
the
call
and
we
pretty
consistently
not
had
quorum.
So
you
know
it's
something
that
we've
brought
up
in
the
past
and
I.
Think
we've
been
running
this
meeting
in
this
kind
of
time.
Long
enough,
we
still
have
not
consistently
had
corn
in
these
calls
that
it's.
D
B
D
A
A
B
A
Want
to
yellow,
basically
it
you
know,
there
was
a
comment
that
we
needed
to
make
it
a
little
bit
more
explicit
on
what
the
requirements
for
approving
pr's
to
self
nominate
were,
and
any
other
actions
like
adding
to
mailing
lists
and
sending
a
notification
to
the
project
that
they're
coming
from.
So
this
adds
that
to
the
governance
so
far
we
have
two
approvals
and
I,
don't
think
any
outstanding
issues.
D
B
D
Sure
so
the
first
thing
that
I
ended
up
doing
was
just
removing
it
altogether
from
the
template.
I
got
feedback
and
we
talked
about
it
in
the
last
meeting
that
perhaps
that
wasn't
really
sufficient.
So
what
I
ended
up
doing
was
adding
the
copy
back
by
copy
pasting
it,
but
I
ended
up
moving
the
checklist.
The
checklist
was
currently
in
the
new
project.
D
Application
I
moved
it
from
the
new
project,
application
to
the
project,
progression
markdown,
so
it
actually
is
in
there,
and
so
the
line
that
says
project
goes
through
process
of
adhering
to
onboarding
checklist.
Now,
as
a
link
that
links
to
you
know,
I
can
sub
header.
That
has
the
checklist
right
in
line
there,
rather
than
being
out
of
the
application
and
then
inside
of
the
template,
I
added
a
comment
stating
where
it
was
copied
from
and
the
date
that
it
was
copied.
D
D
I'm
personally
I
like
this
change
that
I
made
of
moving
it
to
the
project
progression.
Obviously,
because
I
made
it
and
I
was
just
curious.
If
people
had
any
concerns
about
the
current
state
of
it
also
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt,
but
it
looks
like
a
giri
needs,
a
promotion,
don't
think
oh
host,
no
one
has
signed
off
on
this.
Yet
though,
so
I
would
appreciate
some,
you
know
Plus
Ones
or,
alternatively,
if
there's
something
that
people
are
blocking
on.
If
they
could,
you
know
state
the
changes
they'd
like
to
see.
D
So
this
was,
and
we
can
update
that
we
want,
but
this
is
something
I
want
to
point
out.
All
the
changes
that
you
can
see
in
the
template
happened
because
I
copy
pasted,
the
one
that
was
actually
in
the
application
got
it,
and
that
was
the
inconsistency,
so
we
can
go
through
and
figure
out
which
one
of
these
we
want
to
be
canonical.
E
I
would
agree
with
Jory
and
I
would
say
it,
maybe
not
worth
III
didn't
realize.
That
was
the
difference,
so
I
would
say
I'd
rather
get
through
this,
then
we
can
go
back
and
fix
things
so
either
way,
I
mean
if
you
want
to
go
fix
them,
that's
cool,
but
that's
not
like
a
big
deal.
I'd
rather
get
this
all
straightened
out.
So
we
have
the
one
source
of
truth.
A
I'm
green
one
one
work
question
not
not
to
object
to
what's
there,
but
just
clarify
the
we
didn't
want
to
just
like
in
the
like
to
actually
use
the
template
is
the
source
of
truth
and
have
a
link
in
the
other
location
and
I.
Just
you
know,
because
it's
already
out
of
date,
I
can
just
see
it's
gonna,
be
an
ongoing
thing
to
get
copies
of
something
up-to-date
right
projects.
D
F
A
D
Still
think
like
it's
in
a
dot,
it's
in
a
dot
folder,
it's
not
like
III
see
personally-
and
this
may
just
be
you
know
my
own
Pig,
headedness
and
also
Toby
needs
to
be
promoted,
but
I,
don't
think
that
we
should
be
having
anything
that's
canonical
in
templates
and
in
dot
files
to
me,
those
seem
like
metadata
or
they
seem
like
additional
data.
We
should
have
these
at
the
root
of
the
directory
and
easy
as
easy
to
find
as
possible.
Yes,
we
could
remove
it
and
just
point
towards
the
template.
That
seems
odd
to
me.
D
A
G
D
B
G
And
I
had
a
look
at
it.
It
looks
good
I'll
get
that
off
to
it's
illegal,
just
to
put
a
third
set
of
eyes
on
it.
In
general,
we
are
at
the
point
where
the
documents
are
under
a
review.
Various
board
members
have
feedback
on
them,
so
we're
addressing
that
and
then
other
documents.
Everything
else
will
be
going
off
to
the
legal
committee
for
the
foundation
and
then
hopefully,
hopefully
soon
I
mean.
Ideally,
the
next
board
meeting
will
be
able
to
vote
on
great.
B
The
next
item
here
is
the
collab
summit
at
nodejs,
interactive
on
the
new
repo.
There
are
a
couple
of
issues
here.
One
is
242,
one
is
287.
Last
week's
action
item
was
to
wait
a
few
days
Manila
to
let
us
know
when
it's
okay
to
initiate
Rico
transfer.
This
minoo
on
the
line,
I
didn't
think
I'd
saw
him
come
in
nope.
H
C
C
H
D
Up
as
well,
if
you
take
a
look
at
issue,
190
that
I
opened
was
just
general
questions
about
discoverability
of
the
summit.
I've
had
a
couple
people,
including
speakers
from
the
event
what
I
mentioned.
The
summit
had
no
idea
that
it
was
going
on
in
some
people
who,
when
they
found
out
about
the
summit,
it
significantly
changed
their
interest
in
attending
the
conference,
and
it
had
a
lot
more
value
to
the
trip.
So
I've
opened
an
issue
about
improving
the
discoverability
of
the
summit
as
well.
D
I
know
that
in
the
past
we
have
made
the
summit
less
discoverable,
because
people
book
travel
and
came
and
then
didn't
find
it
super
useful
because
notes,
it's
possible
now.
The
broader
coverage
of
projects
within
the
foundation
that
I
may
be
more
useful
to
general
attendees,
but
I
do
think
that
this
is
something
for
us
to
think
about
about,
like
how
broadly
we
want
to
promote
it,
and
you
know,
like
kind
of
how
many
people
were
targeting
in
attendance,.
F
D
Were
non
collaborators
or
like
people
from
Google
in
general,
I
found
like
especially
for
travel
that
people
need
to
do
like
across
the
country
if
it's
just
for
one
two
day
event
it's
much
harder
for
them
to
just
by
then,
if
there's
kind
of
multiple
things
that
are
back-to-back,
these
are
individuals
who
are
interested
in
getting
more
involved
and
I.
Think
their
presence
at
the
summit
would
be
useful
and
helpful,
but
you
know
they
had
no
idea
about
the
summit.
Yeah.
A
Because
I
think
you
know
it's
it's
it's
that's
where
I
think
you're
right.
We
need
to
figure
out
the
strategy
on
that
front
for
non
collaborators
right,
like
we've
gone
back
between
back
and
forth,
between
the
we
should
have
it,
you
know
be.
The
clobber
is
getting
to
go
talking
to
someone
URI.
We
had
like,
like
an
intro
section
after
the
code
and
learned
and
I
think
we
made
it
less
discoverable,
as
you
mentioned
after
a
bunch
of
people
showed
up
and
then
it
was
like.
Well,
it's
it's
actually
for
collaborators,
not
just
everybody
right.
A
B
I
D
Like
for
me,
I
think
I
think
that
we've
as
Michael
mentioned,
we've
jumped
back
and
forth
between
how
we
wanted
to
set
this
up,
especially
to
make
it
like
valuable
to
people
and
not
kind
of
set
people
up
for
failure.
But
I
think
that
the
expansion
of
all
the
different
projects
I
think
we
can
rethink
how
we're
promoting
it.
A
B
B
B
B
D
D
It
specifies
that
a
CPC
check-in
is
the
project
and
that
you
know
it's
expected
that
incubating
projects
will
make
an
active
effort
to
work
through
the
onboarding
process
in
a
reasonable
timeframe.
They'll
be
offered
foundation
support
to
help
do
so.
All
incubating
projects
will
have
a
CPC
champion,
there's
kind
of
a
couple,
different
reasons
that
I
think
that
this
is
important.
D
I
think
that
that's
a
signal
that
the
project
may
not
be
a
fit,
and
it's
also
an
early
signal
of
kind
of
future
friction
that
would
happen
during
the
process,
because,
if
even
just
during
the
silent
period,
we
can't
get
someone
to
raise
their
hand
and
say:
hey
I
will
work
with
them
to
help
make
sure
they're
successful.
How
are
they
going
to
be
successful,
going
through
all
of
the
different
steps
of
things
that
need
to
happen
for
them
to
get
on
board?
D
D
D
A
I
think
if,
if
there
are
no
volunteers,
then
it's
up
to
the
CPC
to
figure
out
if
that's,
okay
or
we
need
to
try
and
find
a
champion
right,
because
there
were
some
concerns
and
said:
hey,
there
might
be
a
really
great
fit,
but
there's
just
no
champion
of
volunteers.
If
we,
if
we
as
a
CPC,
recognize
that
we
should
then
have
the
responsibility
to
figure
out
what
to
do
so.
D
D
You
know
hundreds
of
projects,
then,
might
be
a
problem
if
we're
expecting
to
on
board
less
than
maybe
ten
projects
in
the
next
two
years,
I'm
less
concerned
about
it
being
a
problem
and
I.
Don't
I
know
that
it's
harsh,
but
I
do
think
that
it
can
be
the
kind
of
forcing
function
that
can
cause
us
to
like
make
hard
decisions.
A
I'd
also
add
that
I,
don't
think
having
a
champion
assigned
means
that
as
men
you
know
as
Miles
mentioned
it
doesn't
mean
they
have
to
do
all
the
work.
Hopefully
we
would
still
have
the
support
of
yourself
and
Brian
to
to
get
going,
but
you
know
they
would
be
the
person
that
that
is
like
on
the
CPC
that
if
there's
something
that
needs
you
know,
CPC
input
push
move
whatever
would
be.
The
person
look
to
I
guess.
F
B
F
B
J
G
This
is
kind
of
what
was
behind
my
question.
Oh,
if
it
were
somebody's
helping
the
project
navigate
the
logistics
of
joining
you
know
something
like
joy
or
I
would
probably
do
then.
The
goal
there
is
to
make
sure
that
the
project
doesn't
fail
because
of
logistical
reasons.
If
the
goal
is
to
make
sure
the
project
is
a
good
fit,
then
the
champion.
If
that
is
their
role
you
they
may
come
back
with
yeah
it's
a
good
project,
but
it's
not
a
good
fit,
and
so
it
doesn't
succeed
in
becoming
a
foundation
project.
A
Yeah
I
think
I
think
I
was
reading
it
as
the
fit
side
like
the
logistics,
the
logistics
I.
Think
you
know
it's
it's.
We
definitely
want
to
avoid
putting
a
lot
of
you
know
a
lot
of
reliance
or
logistic
success
on
maybe
the
volunteers,
but
the
fit
part
is
I.
Think
you
know
where
I
read
it
was
like.
If
we
can't
get
somebody
who's
interested
enough
to
help
on
the
fit
and
make
the
case
for
the
fit.
That's
an
indicator
on
its
own
right.
Yeah.
G
A
G
A
E
D
When
I
had
drafted
it,
the
intention
was
that
the
champion
was
supporting
the
project
up
until
the
point
that
they
were
officially
accepted
into
the
foundation
and
acted
as
the
project's
point
person
for
general
questions.
But
it
seems
like
if
we
tease
out
champion
versus
mentor
have
to
rethink
that
a
bit.
Would
anyone
else
like
to
volunteer
to
take
on
read
and
copy
to
kind
of
like
tease
these
two
roles
apart
or
would
you
like
me
to
take
a
crack
at
it?.
C
I'm
happy
to
like
collaborate
with
you
on
that,
because
it
seems
like
a
very
relevant
what
I
am
doing.
I'm.
B
D
A
D
And
I
don't
want
to
be
like
super
pedantic
about
it,
but
it
seems
like
something
that
we
should
probably
iron
out
specifically
within
our
governance
itself
around
how
long
it
takes
in
what
files,
or
maybe
a
better
definition
about
the
governance.
But
our
project
progression
is
arguably
part
of
the
governance,
so
it
should
theoretically
fall
under
the
governance
rules,
especially
since
this
does
change
process,
as
it's
documented,
so
I've
signed
off
on
it,
I
think
it's
ready
to
land
but
I
think
by
our
governance.
Right
now.
D
Think
that
we
can
avoid
being
super
in
the
weeds
about
like
listing
all
the
things
that
our
governance,
we
don't
need
to,
like
you
know,
make
a
blessed
list,
but
I
do
think.
Perhaps
we
could
clarify
the
language
a
little
bit
or
maybe
I
just
need
to
review
it
to
just
make
it
clear
that
it's
not
specifically
just
the
governance,
not
markdown
file,
and
it's
anything
that
affects
the
governance
of
the
foundation
itself.
D
A
D
F
A
B
See
I'm
not
so
that's
pull
request,
302
your
your
referencing
here
miles.
Yes,.
A
A
Okay,
so
there's
just
a
couple
things,
so
you
know
the
board
meeting
was
held
last
week.
We
did
approve
one
of
the
cover
Changez
that
was
was
already
landed
by
miles.
We
already
talked
about
the
other
one,
which
is
you
know
in
progress,
but
just
waiting
on
a
CPC,
the
the
one
thing
that
was
mentioned,
and
it
was
mentioned
in
the
public
section
as
well-
that
I
just
want
to
make
sure
people
are
aware
of
is
on
on
the
front
of
looking
for
venues
for
next
year
for
note
plus
Jase
interactive.
A
A
A
Also,
there
you
know
the
in
terms
of
locations,
it's
a
bit
dependent
on
the
date,
I
think
it's
it
was
mentioned
in
the
public
section.
You
know
still
looking
at
some
of
the
Canadian
locations
but
depend
you
know.
Some
of
the
challenge
was
the
date
was,
is
that
things
get
booked
up
a
couple
years
ahead,
so
there
was
no
like
no
availability
and
some
of
the
candidate
candidate
sites,
I
think,
that's
just
to
say
no
good
information
on
where
it
would
be.
At
this
point.
A
Think
that
was
like
some
of
the
candidates,
the
number
of
them
we're
still
in
Canada
I
think
there
was
one
or
two
still
in
the
US
as
well,
but
that
was
the
but
Canada
was
definitely
higher.
Was
like.
There
were
several
candidate
from
Canada,
okay,
no
Ottawa
I
think
we
were
also
at
airport.
You
know
how
easy
it
is
to
get
to
places
stuff
like
that.
E
B
A
A
The
other
thing
is,
we
should
just
maybe
take
a
quick
look
at
the
board
that
we've.
You
know.
We
have
the
budget
council,
the
board
items
they've
been
brought
to
the
board.
I
think
we've
covered
all
of
them.
So
far.
You
know.
Really
all
we
have
in
the
non
done
section
so
far
is
that
you
know
the
substitute
containers
governing
body
which
we
talked
about.
A
We
did
have
some
want
some
feedback
on
one
of
the
applications.
I
think
Chris
has
that
feedback
for
the
group
which
we
won't
talk
about
here
period
and
then
the
other
thing
is
I,
adding
the
draft
charter
template,
which
we've
already
had
an
input.
So
if
there's
that's
what
we
have
on
the
list
of
things
that
you
know,
Chris
and
I
are
tracking
to
to
manage
with
the
board.
So
if
there's
anything,
that's
not
on
there,
please
let
us
know
and
add
it
in.
C
B
B
There
are
no
objections.
I'll
dive
in
here
privacy
would
get
done
real
quickly.
One
of
them
is
improve.
Governance
for
regular
members
is
what
we
were
talking
about
earlier.
Is
this
yep
okay
for
that
one
we
could
skip
over
and
then
the
other
one?
That's
in
progress
is
document
define
initial
process
for
handling
reports.
I
know
we
have
the
pull
request
open
on
this
right,
but
I
don't
think
Manila's
is
here
today
triangle
that
up
here.
B
B
D
Yeah
so
I
think
that
where
we
left
it
last,
the
biggest
thing
that
I
wanted
to
see
before
this
could
land
stayed
one
I,
don't
know
if
this
has
been
updated
yet
checking
it
doesn't
look
like
as
Ben
was
it
didn't,
follow
the
the
proposal
process,
application
template
that
we
have
so
it
just
had
everything
in
one
file
rather
than
having
a
readme.
A
D
A
I,
don't
think
it's
actually
useful
tool
and
it
the
way
it
is
now
it's.
It's
basically
got
two
things
which
you've
read
them.
You
like
I,
don't
go
together,
doesn't
make
sense
as
a
proposal
anymore.
The
disposal
made
sense
on
its
own
new
piece,
maybe
make
sense
on
its
own,
but
together
they
don't
make
sense.
So
I
don't
see
the
point
pushing
it
to
the
next
stage.
Okay,.
D
I
guess
it
was
more
just
like
it
doesn't
exist
in
the
repo
right
now
so
landing
at
a
stage.
One
allows
us
to
just
quickly
iterate
on
it
and
like
you,
then
only
have
the
72-hour
time
for
PRS,
as
opposed
to
like
landing.
Something
as
a
stage
seems
like
a
big
step,
but
I
mean
either
way
it
doesn't
make
it.
A
A
A
If
the
code
card
apparel
exists,
then
it
should
be
handling
these
requests
and
if
we're
not
gonna,
if
we're
not
gonna
have
it
handle
the
requests,
then
we
should
change
the
other
doc
to
say
that
that
doesn't
exist
and
we
have
something.
You
know
it's
described
something
different
who's
gonna,
be
the
one
responsible
right.
B
A
B
Yeah
we're
just
you
see
it,
you
know
see
how
things
are
going,
maybe
started
working
already.
Who
knows
oh
great?
Well
thanks.
So
we
are
at
the
top
of
the
hour
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
call
it
quits
I
think
most
people
have
already
called
it
quits,
but
but
I'll
still
say
thanks
to
everyone,
and
we
will
see
you
all
next
week,
Cheers.
Thank
you.