►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - 2019-09-17
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
Welcome
to
this
week's
open,
J's
foundations
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
September
17th
2019.
Our
issue
for
the
agenda
is
a
few
three
to
three
all
the
folks
that
are
in
attendance
here.
Please
don't
forget
to
add
your
name
to
the
doc
and,
if
folks
can
tip
in
on
helping
take
notes.
That
would
be
great,
let's
start
off
by
seeing,
if
there's
any
anything,
to
share
before
we
get
into
the
agenda
and
the
announcements
anything
else
alike.
A
Think
no
and
Jess
interactive
schedule
is
live
and
I
think
that
there
is
continuing
work
on
the
collab
summit
and
code
learn
and
such
there
was
a
ticket.
So
is
it
a
biweekly
meeting
happened
about
an
hour
or
so
ago.
Unfortunately,
it's
not
able
to
attend,
but
there's
progress
there.
If
you're
interested
to.
B
A
C
A
B
A
A
And
then
also
connect
to
providing
a
reply
to
an
application
within
a
specific
time
frame.
You
know:
we've
discussed
this.
The
last
couple
meetings
just
sketching
out
what
would
be
reasonable
communication
for
a
project
application
expectations,
Michael
you
and
I
on
anything
else
in
terms
of
the
PR
that
you
have
open
and
I.
B
Guess
the
other
thing
which
we
discussed
in
the
past
is
having
some
sort
of
like
fit
checklist.
No
I
added
that
in
the
PR
as
well.
In
terms
of
you
know
our
initial
discussion
around
whether
it's
you
know
it's
a
good
candidate.
You
know
I've
listed
a
few
things
out
and
if
other
people
have
ideas
of
what
else
we
should
have
on
that
checklist.
I
think
it'd
be
good
to
have
it
out
there.
It's
it's
cast
as
like.
It's
not
like
a
you
meet
this
or
not,
and
that's
that
makes
the
decision.
A
D
D
E
Yeah
I
think
having
a
bullet
like
that
is
important,
like
phrases
like
that,
rather
than
detailing
how
because
yeah
basically
impossible
to
actually
like
consistently
reversibly
validate
that
someone
is
a
representative
or
the
project
in
representing
the
decisions
of
the
project,
because
every
project
is
going
to
be
different
like
if
it's
a
something
like,
for
example,
like
lodash,
where
jdd
is
like
the
main
person.
Yes,
if
it's
something
much
bigger
than
has
like
a
larger
ecosystem.
E
B
A
A
F
A
And
there
are,
there
are
small,
the
PRS
to
that
we
could.
We
could
take
a
look
at
it
from
you
know.
We
wanted
to
kind
of
keep
progress
going.
So
the
the
final
item
on
the
agenda
for
today
as
usual,
is
the
post
group
work
from
you
know
for
the
CPC,
the
it's
collected
in
a
project
board
which
is
number
three.
A
A
Where
is
the
PR,
so
manila
drafted
something
and
then
converted
it
into
a
PR
I'll?
Here
it
is
it's
a
pull
request,
271
and
this
is
tacking
it
on
to
an
open
proposal,
for
you
know,
COC
reports
and
such
now,
Michael
I
know
that
you
had
the
last
kind
of
update
to
this
and
there's
been
small
conversation.
Do
you
want
to
summarize
where
we
are
at?
Currently?
Yes,
okay,.
B
B
Right
so
the
the
main
you
know,
the
main
changes
were
that
you
know
the
original
proposal
included
a
code
of
conduct
panel
with
a
make
up.
The
other
doc
fine,
which
was
you
know,
includes
you
know,
members
from
the
foundation
members
from
the
CPC
and
then
you
know,
representation
from
the
projects
as
well
and
then
so
you
know
I
integrated
the
wording
that
says
that
it's
not
panel
who's,
who's,
responsible
and
actually
the
the
document
covers
reporting
to
two
different
email
addresses
reported,
open,
jsf,
Thorg
and
COC
escalation.
It
opened
JSF
torgue.
B
B
C
C
Because
then
the
question
is
like
I,
don't
know
how
projects
or
what
type
of
projects
are
going
to
come,
but
the
right
now
there
are
a
wide
variety
of
projects.
They
are
projects
that
only
have
like
one
or
two
main
ten
years
and
others
are
have
like
hundreds,
even
though
there
is
the
COCs
Cali
I
mean
I
would
understand
why
someone
reporting
going
back
to
the
example
of
a
flow
does
like
JD
has
the
main
maintainer
it's
like.
B
B
B
Right
says:
there's
a
report:
okay,
so
general
reports,
the
COC
escalation,
should
refer
to
a
report.
That's
already
been
submit
to
the
reported
open,
dist
org,
one
of
the
projects,
reporting
emails
or
an
explanation
of
why
the
report
he
doesn't
feel
comfortable
using
in
the
previous
reporting
emails
for
the
initial
report,
so
that
was
intended
to
cover
the
you
know:
there's
a
single
maintainer,
I'm,
not
comfortable.
So
if
you
know
it
makes
sense
to
send
it
here,
you.
G
B
A
H
B
So
I
think
I
think
the
mania
we're
starting
to
get
some
some
approvals.
I,
don't
think.
There's
any
outstanding
comments
concerns
the
main
thing
would
be
to
make
sure
of.
Is
you
know
it's
gotta,
wear
enough
awareness
and
do
we
think
we're
ready
to
you
know
when
what
do
we
want
to
have
happen
before
we
move
it
to
the
next
stage
would
be
the
one
well,
the
one
thing
I
was.
B
A
B
A
Only
hesitation,
I
have
and
I'm
scrolling
to
the
PR
now
to
find
it
miles,
leaves
a
comment
that
says
on
this.
Let's
see
this
was
almost
a
month
ago,
I've
left
a
number
of
comments
in
line
I'm,
not
100%,
sure
I
support.
The
proposed
process
would
like
to
talk
to
you
some
of
the
decisions,
especially
about
how
things
were
settled.
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
blocker
to
stage
one
per
se,
but
it's
you
know
it's
gives
me
a
little
bit
of
pause.
Yeah.
B
I
think
that
was
mostly
on
previous
text,
which
has
changed
significantly
welcome
right,
so
he
he
also
said
you
know
he
was
a
solid
blocker.
He
did
remove
his
his
last
comment
was
I
won't
have
time
to
review
it,
but
I'm
gonna
remove
my
blocking
welcome,
but
yeah
I
think
part
of
it
was.
You
know
there
was
some
discussion
around
only
exiting
the
process
if
the
a
if
the
reporter
agreed
with
it
mmm-hmm.
A
B
That
language
is
no
longer
there,
it's
it's,
it's
reflected
in
it.
What
it
says
today
is
that
this,
the
CPC
II
or
the
CE
o
PC
needs
to
be
comfortable.
That
they've
addressed
their.
You
know
the
reporter's
concerns
adequately,
so
it
includes
going
back
to
them.
You
know
exchanging
and
sharing
the
proposed
resolution,
and
you
know
cycling
back
and
forth
if
they
say
well,
no
I,
don't
think
that's
good
enough
or
whatever,
but
it
basically
ends
when
the
CPC
or
the
CEO
PC
says.
B
A
A
B
A
H
A
H
A
A
I
A
I
As
far
as
I
understand
that
the
onboarding
process,
the
lists
such
as
it
is
for
mocha
but
I'm,
not
sure
this
is
probably
a
jury
question
but
like
where
do
those?
Where
do
those
lists
live?
You
know
who
maintains
them
and
are
they
public
and
blah
blah
blah
and
I
think
those
are
questions
that
need
to
be
answered
so.
H
Yeah
actually,
I
can
up
on
this
as
well
any
lists
which
are
on
the
open,
JSF
org
domain
I
can
spin
those
up
and
I
can
grant
access
to
her
broad
need
to
be
the
moderator
for
that.
That's
certainly
no
problem
and
I
can
do
that
in
about
30
seconds
time,
which
we
need.
If
we're,
if
we're
doing
it
on
the
projects
domain,
then
that
becomes
a
separate
discussion,
particularly
for
using
something
like
groups
that
I
owe
which
is
very
powerful,
but
also
has
a
subscription
fee,
and
so
sorry.
B
I
E
D
There
was
a
discussion
earlier
that
started
from
talking
about
exactly
these
lists
of
contacts
and
then
went
on
to
talk
about
effectively
expressing
them
in
a
way
that
a
project
will
be
able
to
moderate
their
own
mailing
list
under
possibly
open
JSF
org
and
through
that
provide
the
foundation
with
a
semi
verified
way
of
having
having
being
a
of
the
foundation
being
able
to
get
in
touch
with
a
project.
But
I.
Don't
think
this
went
anywhere
actually
beyond
just
being
a
conversation
at
a
meeting
a
month
or
two
ago,.
A
D
A
Great
back
onto
the
project
board
number
three,
the
post
bootstrap
housekeeping
board.
The
next
item
is
define
and
document
a
style
guide
for
the
Foundation's
name
and
I.
Think
that
this
could
be
expanded
to
you
know.
Other
aspects
of
the
foundation
I
think
it
was
even
discussed
to
have
a
repository
in
the
github
org
that
would
have
you
know,
related
assets
and
and
and
style
guides
and
such
I
know
I.
A
Could
you
restate
the
request
sure
so
the
the
issue
is
t-80
and
it's
actually
opened
by
Emily
so
feel
free
to
chime
in
as
well
annoying,
but
the
the
title
is
define
and
document
a
style
guide
for
the
Foundation's
name.
I
think
this
was
born
out
of.
Is
it
open,
Jaso
to
open,
JSF
and
such
but
there's
also
other
considerations
around
like
how
what's
you
know?
Where
can
you
get
access
to
the
logo
and
other
press
materials
and
guidance
on
on
how
to
use
the
name
and
such
so.
E
My
suggestion
is
to
basically
follow
the
template
that
webpack
has
I'm
pasting
that
into
the
zoom
chat.
I
can
also
comment
that
in
the
doc
or
in
the
issue,
but
that
that
guidelines
brainy
granulates
page
they
have
is
actually
really
good
and
it's
something
I'd
like
to
kind
of
maybe
drive
note
in
the
direction
of
at
some
point.
E
But
basically
he
just
provides
everything
you
need,
including
the
name
which
web
pack
the
set,
has
decided
to
be
lower
case,
which
you
know
relatively
the
same
thing
of
how
do
we
actually
save
the
name
and
write
the
name
I
think
that
that's
a
very
good
template
for
us
to
follow,
and
it
does
seem
like
this-
is
it's
an
issue
yeah,
so
you
know
duplicating
that.
I
think
is
more
than
you
know.
It's
a
very
good
base
of
an
existing
project
and.
I
H
H
The
logo
guidelines
for
colors
and
fonts,
and
things
like
that,
as
well
as
all
of
the
artwork
mobile
projects,
including
the
foundation
itself,
seems
like
that'd,
be
a
great
place
to
put
this
documentation
once
we
get
that
ready
to
there.
We
go
and-
and
the
thing
you
were
waiting
on,
there
is
for
the
final
trademark
guidelines
that
make
sense.
A
A
D
H
Could
be
both
certainly
I
would
just
recommend
keeping
the
reason.
I
recommend
the
repo
is.
If
the
logos
are
there,
that's
typically
the
place
people
go
to
look
for
guidelines
on
them.
I,
so
kind
of
keeping
everything
together
in
one
place
would
be
makes
it
a
lot
easier
to
point
people
to
when
they
have
questions
yeah.
E
And
you
know
I'm
all
in
favor
of
it
like
I'm,
just
a
branding
repo
which
I
think
that
was
a
discussion
we
had
a
long
time
ago,
but
yeah
I'm,
totally
in
favor
of
that
and
I
think
that's
a
very
fair
approach
and
like
following
the
structure
of
webpack.
If
you
know
there's
anything,
that's
missing
from
what
you've
already
done,
Brian
that
is
web
Beck.
Has
that
you
don't
maybe
fling
that
in
could
be
a
good
approach,
but
otherwise
I
think
that
sounds
reasonable.
Absolutely
yeah.
H
H
H
A
E
A
A
H
A
H
A
A
Next,
on
the
in
the
few
column-
and
this
is
the
time
check
its
2:38,
so
we
still
good
20
minutes,
review
foundation
infrastructure
and
we
think
how
we
manage
it.
This
is
something
that
I
converted
from
you
know
a
non-issue
to
an
issue
about
a
month
ago,
and
we
have
a
working
group.
That's
for
lack
of
a
better
term.
That's
but
spun
up.
I,
don't
know
if
we
need
to
keep
this
issue
open
or
let
the
working
group
do
its
work.
Anybody
have
any
thoughts
on
this.
B
A
B
A
Maybe
if
someone
wants
to
just
drop
a
comment
in
there
that
you
know
the
working
group
is
spinning
up
and
there's
a
slack
channel
and
if
they're
a
regular
meeting
happening
being
in
one
but
I'm,
not
sure
if
it's
a
continuous,
you
know
a
regularly
scheduled
meeting.
H
H
A
H
Now
I
can
tell
you
maybe
a
little
bit
about
what's
going
on
the
back
end,
so
Jory
and
I
have
been
going
through
and
building
an
inventory
of
what
projects
are
actually
using
right
now
and
then
we
have
a
proposal
which
is
in
reasonably
good
shape.
I
think
at
this
point
and
probably
about
ready
for
a
review
on.
H
We
probably
should
finish
the
inventory
so
that
we
have
a
reasonably
good
idea
of
what
different
projects
are
using,
that's
partly
to
not
set
the
wrong
expectation,
but
also
in
some
cases,
your
projects,
maybe
using
something
and
not
see
that
thing
on
the
list
and
may
lead
to
questions
of.
Is
this
not
supported
anymore?
So
we
have
some
things
like
that
that
we
need
to
work
through,
but
it's
it's
moving
great
things
that
take
some
time.
Yeah.
A
Great
all
right!
Well,
if
anyone
wants
to
drop
a
comment
in
there
just
to
kind
of
update
folks
that
you
know,
there's
there's
what
kind
of
going
on
there's
a
group.
That's
spinning
up!
There's
a
slack
channel
we'll
leave
this
issue
open
until
it
kind
of
gets
underway.
That
might
be
hopeful
future,
but
otherwise
it
seems
like
next
issue
and
this
one's
pretty
old
one
May,
20th
admin,
add
admin
policy,
Docs
I
think.
Actually.
This
is
something
that
I
had
on
my
to-do
list
that
has
sort
of
fallen
off.
A
There
are
a
number
of
documents
that
are.
You
know
that
we
captured
in
the
node
org
that
we
could
transfer
over
to
the
open
Deus
org,
such
as
transferring
a
repo
into
the
open,
Deus,
org
github,
org
management
policy,
member
expectation
policy,
which
I
think
we've
already
moved
and
like
working
group
requirements,
Michael
I
know
this
is
something
you
and
I
talked
about.
This
touching
base
on
I
could
try
to
get
the
work
done
on
moving
it
over
a
bit
sort
of
dropped
off.
My
radar,
okay.
B
B
A
A
A
A
So
do
we
want
to
from
here
we're
kind
of
done
with
our
agenda?
We've
got
15
minutes
left.
We
could
look
at
the
project,
onboarding
project
board
or
if
anyone
has
any
updates
on
any
sort
of
project,
onboarding
work
that
might
be
helpful.
I
know,
Chris
Porter's
is
away
and
Rory's
away
and
christmas
chris
hillier,
I
think
you've
been
doing
some
of
the
work.
Emily
I,
don't
know
if
you've
been
doing
some
of
the
work
as
well.
D
A
A
The
back
to
the
poll
requests
the
one
after
that
is
pull
requests
3:19,
which
was
open
by
miles
not
that
long
ago
who
has
joined
the
call.
This
adds
language
about
the
expectations
for
members
to
express
objections
or
dissent.
What
is
this?
Oh
yeah,
yeah,
yeah,
okay,
this
is
pretty
minor
one
and
has
a
ton
of
approvals
so.
A
B
A
Excellent,
the
next
one
is
interesting:
it's
pull
request
313.
This
is
open
by
Steele.
This
is
regarding
a
project
exit
criteria
and
those
on
the
call,
as
he
states
in
the
description
here,
looking
to
first
focus
on
a
minimal
use
case,
that
a
project
decided
to
leave
the
foundation
and
that
there
are
many
other
use
cases,
but
let's
first
get
this
one
nailed
down
and
then
we
can
expand
from
there.
G
A
G
A
A
You
know,
there's
been
a
lot
of
comments
on
this
effort
overall,
but
I.
Don't
think
that
much
in
terms
of
moving
to
stage
three,
it
looks
like
miles.
You
requested
a
review
from
Mike
Dolan
20
days
ago.
I,
don't
know
if
there
are
any
updates
on
this
or
anyone
have
something
thoughts
about
how
we
you
know
what
it
would
take
to
move
us
forward.
B
G
So
if
it
landed
stage
two
though
then
it
means
that,
like
we're
happy
with
where
it's
at,
we
want
the
board
to
approve
of
it
as
a
general
thing
and
we
can
adjust
later
once
it
lands.
Do
we
want
to
bring
it
back
and
not
have
it
at
stage
two
yet
and
work
through
that,
or
are
we
ready
to
have
the
board
sign
off
on
it?
Well,
it's
on
it's
it's
at
stage,
two.
B
A
G
Is
like
we
should
not,
it
should
not
have
landed
at
stage
two.
If
we
had
unresolved
questions
unless
those
are
unresolved,
questions
that
you
know
are
specific
to
the
board
so
like
the
who
qualifies
for
the
travel
fund,
I
think
that
either
a
we
should
kick
this
back
to
stage
one
and
figure
that
out
to
call
this
stage
two
or
alternatively,
like
like
we
have
the
board
meeting,
is
coming
up
on.
C
G
G
B
I
think
one
of
the
that
the
like
you
know,
we've
got
fairly
broad
consultation,
so
there
hasn't
been
any
any
major
objections.
The
only
concern
raised
was
you
know,
is
this
gonna
mean
that
there
won't
be
enough,
for
you
know
the
no
project
to
do
what
it's
done
in
the
panels.
In
terms
of
you
know,
it's
like
nobody
had
any
concerns
as
long
as
it's
like
yeah,
okay.
This
has
just
now
opened
up
to
everybody
and
there's
enough
budget
to
cover
what
the
new
usage
is.
B
Gonna
be
right
and
that's
kind
of
the
root
of
the
question
to
say:
if
we
say
well,
okay,
we
you
know,
we
I,
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
solid
numbers,
but
it's
like
we
expect
that
you
know,
because
we've
got
the
other
projects
using
it
we'll
see
a
20
percent
increase
right
and
when,
in
which
case,
we
should
just
ask
for
a
20
percent
increase
in
the
budget,
and
then
you
know,
we've
addressed
that
concern.
Okay,.
G
B
H
G
G
So
to
me
like
it
almost
feels
like,
because
we
did
the
last
one
more
open
and
if
we
won
that
run
this
one
more
open
like
we
almost
want
to
see
those
numbers
before
we
start
requesting
more
about
it
in
case
we
don't
need
it
and
a
firm
commitment
from
the
board
that
you
know
raising
the
budget
wouldn't
be
an
issue
to
me
with
my
CPC
hat
on
would
satisfy
me
but
I.
You
know,
I,
don't
know
that
everyone
feels
the
same
way.
H
C
B
G
Yeah,
my
gut
is
saying
that
we
have
enough
budget
right
now
and
I.
Think,
like
the
appropriate
thing
in
my
mind,
instead
of
preemptively
extending
the
budget
would
just
be
having
a
firm
commitment
from
the
board
that
they
believe
in
this
program
that
are
willing
to
extend
the
budget
is
necessary.
You.
B
Yeah
I
I'm
happy
I,
guess
I
I,
wouldn't
mind
increasing
the
budget
if
we
thought
we
needed
it,
but
the
you
know
if
we
can
get
some
like.
You
said:
if
there's
a
commitment,
that's
that's
firm,
and
so
we
can,
you
know
complete
you.
We
can
with
complete
confidence,
say,
don't
worry,
you
know
if
if
it
turns
out
that
the
you
know,
adding
in
the
new
projects
means
that
there's
gonna
be
more
it'll,
just
be
increased
and
you're
not
going
to
face
the
wait,
a
sec,
we're
at
the
budget.
So.
E
I'll
be
totally
honest,
I
think
the
potential
for
backlash
would
be
way
worse
than
them.
Just
giving
us
the
money
and
like
I
know,
that's
a
relatively
blunt
way
to
say
that,
but
I
think
you
know
if
they
asserted
that
they
were
willing
to
extend
it
and
that
didn't
that
would
be
far
far
worse
than
if
they
just
did.
You
know,
assuming
that
there's
no
good-faith,
assuming
it's
bad
faith
as
an
assertion
which
I
don't
think
any
of
us
are
coming.
B
H
At
this
point,
I
think
probably
the
best
best
way
to
get
a
feel
for
what
would
be
left
over
would
be
to
just
check
the
current
payouts
of
the
travel
fund.
It
should
be
up
to
date,
there's
still
one
or
two
people
who
I'm
waiting
on
to
submit
their
reimbursements
from
the
lab
summit
and
I've
been
bothering
them
about
that,
but
other
than
that
everything
else
should
be
pretty
up
to
date.
B
A
All
right
great
well
that
yeah
all
right
stage
3
is
complete,
so
I
your
note
them
miles
as
well.
She'd
made
this
to
the
repository
as
it
would
merge.
It
would
be
official
documentation,
excellent,
so
great
meeting
everyone
I'm,
pleasantly
surprised.
We
have
a
lighter
turnout
today,
but
I
suppose.
We've
got
a
lot
more.
A
lot
of
work
done
and
I
wish.
It
appreciate
you,
you
all
2:58,
so
we'll
we'll
wrap
it
up
unless
there's
anything
you
want
to
take
in
private
session,
which
we
don't
have
but
didn't
call
it
a
day
thanks.