►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - July 28 2020
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
Live
excellent
thanks
everybody
for
joining
another
episode
of
the
openjs
foundation's
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
the
28th
of
july.
Do
we
have
any
announcements?
Actually
I'm
going
to
sit
in
for
jory
today
as
she
couldn't
make
it?
So
I
will
share
a
couple
of
announcements.
A
The
node
certifications
have
launched
in
china,
which
is
really
cool,
so
you
know
help
get
the
word
out
to
your
collaborators.
There.
B
B
Okay,
actually,
it's
great
to
share
with
folks
here
and
probably
watching,
but
you'll
see
the
blogs
hit.
You'll
see
the
keynote
from
the
linux
foundation.
Apac
team
tomorrow,
on
stage
so
great.
A
Excellent
another
thing
that
jewelry
wanted
highlighted
is
that
we'd
love
to
do
developer
profiles
for
the
blog
featuring
key
folks
from
the
communities.
If
you
want
to
recognize
someone
or
think
they
have
an
interesting
story
that
should
be
featured,
please
let
us
know
rachel
robin
you
want
to
add
anything
to
that.
C
Nope,
that's
that's
exactly
right.
We
are
we're
looking
for
folks
to
to
highlight
on
the
blog,
not
just
the
blog,
but
also
on
external
spots
too.
So
if
you
would
like
to
nominate
somebody
or
if
you
yourself
would
like
to
be
featured,
please
let
me
know,
of
course,
for
folks
who
are
nominated
and
I'm
not
interested
no
pressure.
A
Great
tierney
asked
what
stage
for
the
china
certificates,
certification.
B
Oh
yes,
and
it
is
the
linux
foundation,
open
source
summit
in
china.
It's
a
virtual
stage.
A
Great
and
then
finally,
standards
working
group
meeting
is
today
at
2pm
eastern
time
so
two
hours
after
the
start
of
this
meeting.
So
if
anybody
wants
to
join,
please
do
so
find
out
details
in
the
calendar
any
link
to
the
profile
nomination.
C
Yeah,
you
can
just
slack
me
or
email
me.
That
would
be
great.
I
do
have
a
running
list
of
folks
that
that
have
you
know,
have
shown
interest
or
have
you
know
we've
identified
internally,
but
it's
not
a
formal
nomination.
It's
nothing
like
that.
It's
just
you
know.
A
E
There
was
I'm
trying
to
think
off
the
top.
My
head,
the
opengs,
like
the
collaboration
spaces.
There
was
a
question
as
to
whether
we
could
narrow
the
the
the
choices
for
the
licenses
to
like
one
preferred
by
the
foundation.
So
I'm
going
to
follow
up
with
brian.
On
that
one,
the
other
two
that
were
mentioned
weren't,
you
know
ready
for
a
vote
yet
so
they
were
mentioned
as
an
fyi.
So
we'll
need
to
finish
those
off
and
then
once
I
know
that
they're
ready
I'll
ask
brian
to
start
an
email
vote.
E
Just
trying
to
think,
if
there's
anything
else,
there
was
one
thing
around,
but
I'm
trying
to
remember
if
you
just
give
me
a
minute
I'll,
come
come
back
to
a
little
bit
later.
There's
one
other
thing
I
just
wanted
to
share
as
well
that
I
remember,
but
I
need
to
figure
out
what
it.
A
Was
sure
yeah,
maybe
it's
related
to
an
issue
so
once
we
get
into
the
agenda,
that'll
be
great
cool.
So
speaking
of
let's
get
into
the
agenda,
I
moved
this
one
to
the
top
for
emily
requested
that
we
talk
about
the
incubation
process,
clarifications
issue
which
is
actually
addressed
by
pr
591.
A
I
had
some
suggestions,
emily
incorporated
those
and
if
I'm
yeah
and
so
we've
got
a
couple
of
more
reviews,
I
think
emily
requested
reviews
from
folks
who
had
commented
mateo.
I
think
you
had
commented
so
a
review
is
requested.
Pre-Requested
from
you.
I
don't
know
if
this
qualifies
as
governance
per
se.
So
maybe
that's
something
we
want
to
just
touch
on
here,
but
otherwise
people
should
take
a
look.
It's
it's
not
a
lot
here
and
this
clarifies
how
someone
graduates
from
incubation.
F
I
think
it's
technically
governance.
I
don't
have
anything
particular
that
I
wanted
to
talk
about
for
this
one.
It
was
just
the
the
the
issue
on
this
was
flagged
for
the
for
the
agenda
and,
as
we
had
for
last
last
week,
and
then
we
have
this
issue,
sorry
this
pr
for
closing
it.
So
really
I'm
asking
for
more
eyes
on
this,
so
we
can
approve
it
and
close
it
and
take
it
forward.
Nothing
else.
A
E
Well,
nobody
else
speaks
up.
We
we
have,
I
think,
and
sometimes
in
the
past,
considered
parts
of
that
you
know.
So
I
guess
it
depends
on
how
significant
the
change
is.
You
know
if
it
like
in
this
case
we're
removing
that
final
vote.
A
Yep-
and
it
is
that
vote
just
to
clarify-
is
projects
present
to
cpc
for
final
acceptance
via
a
two-thirds
super
majority
vote
and
appropriate
initial
stage
is
determined.
So
I
mean
that
seems
like
we
were
very
official
about
it
and
now
we're
going
to
well,
we've
already
gone
through
the
motions,
just
create
a
pr
and
we'll
go
through
the
normal
process
of
a
pr
which
is
only,
I
think.
You
know
a
couple
of
reviewers
and
a
couple
of
days.
E
A
Cool
just
wanted
to,
you
know,
stay
above
board
but
yeah.
If
folks
could
take
a
look
at
it,
I
think
it's
it's
it's
modest
and
it's
clear
and
it
shouldn't
take
a
moment
to
you
know,
understand:
what's
there
and
comment
or
approve,
or
what
have
you
cool
thanks
moving
on.
A
So
next
up
is
develop
annual
review
process
for
projects.
I
think
you
know
we
were
talking
about
this
in
the
last
meeting.
I
think
this
really.
We
should
be
considering
this
a
360
review.
A
I
feel
like
this
should
be,
maybe
something
that
is
a
proposal
that
we
work
through
and
and
might
be
easy
for
us
to
kind
of
suss
out
what
what
sort
of
a
review
process
would
look
like,
and
especially
if
it
is
like
a
360
review
with
with
projects
with
the
foundation
with
the
cpc
you
know,
we
can
kind
of
figure
out
what
that
looks
like
through
a
proposal
staging
process.
A
We
can
talk
about
it
here
if
we
want,
or
you
know,
I
would
suggest
people
comment
on
the
issue
and
then
somebody
can
start
to
add.
Someone
can
kind
of
take
the
comments
in
the
issue
and
start
to
flesh
out
a
pr
for
a
proposal
and
we
can
kind
of
work
through
it.
There.
A
Cool,
so
let's
do
that.
Please
take
a
moment,
pull
up
issue
592
and
add
your
thoughts
and
yeah,
we'll
pull
it
together
for
a
pr
proposal.
Great
moving
on
the
next
thing
here
is
the
board
seat,
definitions
and
process,
which
is
a
pull
request.
I
re
created
21
days
ago.
A
So
I'll
have
to
look
at
a
couple
of
the
recent
comments,
but
you
know
I
think
that
this
was
pretty
close
and
it's
seeming
like
maybe
the
comments
were
a
couple
of
minor
things,
links
and
whatnot.
A
So
I
think
this
was
brought
to
the
board
as
an
fyi.
E
It
was
just
it
was
like
this
is
coming
yeah,
but
you
know
we
need
to
once
we're
ready.
We
need
to
then
you
know
start
the
formal
vote,
but
it
looks
like
we
are
pretty
much
ready.
E
E
Yes,
well,
okay,
it's
ready
to
start
the
formal
vote.
Then
yes,
okay,.
A
Yeah,
okay,
because
this
is
changes
of
the
charter
and
whatnot
yeah
cool.
So
after
this
meeting
I
will
go
through.
The
couple
of
comments
are
here:
if
you're
on
this
call-
and
you
haven't
reviewed
it-
please
take
a
quick,
you
know
a
look
and
let
me
know
if
you
see
anything
and
I'll
try
to
get
this
fully
addressed
after
the
meeting
and
then
we
can
kick
off
the
board
vote
and
get
it
through
reminder.
A
We
are
behind
schedule
on
board
seats,
so
it'd
be
great
to
get
this
done,
but
I
don't
think
there's
anything
holding
us
up
other
than
the
board
vote.
Please
cool!
Moving
on
the
updating,
the
cla
to
the
apache
style,
icla
and
ccla
brian.
You
want
to
give
us
an
update
on
this
yeah.
D
I
think
we
probably
are:
we
had
a
discussion
about
this
on
the
board
call,
and
you
know,
generally
speaking,
it
would
say
that
the
board
was,
you
know
in
favor
of
the
of
the
idea
of
having
a
more
generic
cla
versus
a
more
specific
one.
D
It
seems
like
the
discussion
has
calmed
down
on
that
on
that
issue.
I
think
we
got
the
last
question
answered,
which
was
emailies
about
whether
projects
would
have
to
resign
if
they'd
signed
in
the
past.
The
answer
to
that
is
just
only
if
there's
a
new
contribution.
D
Fyi
yeah,
so
we
can.
We
can
close
the
issue
as
the
f,
so
that
was
the
issue
is
for
discussion,
and
that
was
at
the
request
to
the
board.
The
board
vote
thread
is
already
open.
It's
just
that
we
had
paused
it.
Basically,
while
you
know
going
through
this
discussion
at
least,
I
think
it's
open,
if
not
it's
just
one
email
away
either
way.
This
is
the
last
thing
the
board
had
wanted
to
have
have
feedback
on
was
specifically
from
the
project.
G
So
should
we
should,
should
we
submit
that
feedback
back
to
the
board
or
just
consider
that
they've
looked
at
it
and
that's
good.
D
E
Yeah,
in
this
case
it
was
particularly
around.
Are
there
any
objections
to
moving
to
the
apache
and-
and
I
don't
think
we've
heard
my
understanding
is-
we
haven't
heard
any
concerns
from
any
of
the
projects,
so,
on
that
front,
it's
worthwhile
going
back.
There
has
been
other
discussion
around
iclas
versus
corporate.
E
You
know
choosing
one
versus
the
other,
but
that's
a
separate
issue
that
that
one's
actually
worth
you
know
me
better,
maybe
getting
together
with
you
to
better
understand
the
request
for
having
just
one
like
just
having
the
icla.
I
thought
I
understood
the
rationale,
but
in
the
discussion
at
the
board
it
came
out
that
I,
I
probably
don't
so,
if
you
want
to
get
you
know
I'll
set
something
up,
we
can
get
together
and.
E
A
Cool
all
right,
great
moving
on
then
the
next
issue.
I
I
threw
the
label
on
this
one
just
to
kind
of
get
some
eyeballs
on
it
again.
It's
the
collaboration
for
hackathon
issue
that
someone
from
the
community
opened
and-
and
the
event
has
been
moved
to
this-
is
issue
572.
It's
been
moved
to
late
august
now,
so
I
just
wanted
to
kind
of
raise
it.
If
anybody
wants
to
be
a
mentor
or
a
judge,
then
comment
on
the
issue.
A
Otherwise
I'll
take
the
label
back
off
and
let
them
know
that
you
know
it's,
it's
been
surfaced
and
whoever
can
help
or
has
an
interest
will-
and
you
know,
go
from
there
cool
so
check
it
out.
A
Next
up
is
the
governance
changes
for
collaboration
network.
This
is
pull
request.
547
michael,
you
want.
E
To
update
us
on
this
that
one
was
discussed
as
for
a
vote
and
the
one.
The
one
suggestion
was
that
we
we
limit
it
make
maybe
be
a
little
bit
more
limited
in
terms
of
the
the
acceptable
licenses.
So
I
have
an
action
to
go
back
and
talk
with
brian
to
understand
what
the
preferred
license
would
be,
I'm
pretty
sure
the
wording
is
like
it
can
be.
You
know
one
of
the
same
ones
that
we
currently
allow
for
the
projects.
E
E
Yeah,
if
you're
forming,
like
you,
know
the
because
we
have
repos
under
the
foundation
org,
it
needs
to
have
a
license
and
it's
you
know
the
preferred
license
as
opposed
to
any
one
of
the
existing
ones.
Okay,
you
know
it
was
like.
Can
we
be?
Can
we
can?
We
say
this
is
the
license
you
should
use,
because
it's
the
most
preferred
from
the
you
know
the
foundation
legal
covering
the
the
protections
that
we'd
like
to
have
their
perspective.
F
A
All
right
cool,
so
then
that's
almost
ready
to
go
too
great.
E
Yeah
once
we
update
that
we'll
go
back
again
and
with
the
you
know,
the
next
next
asks
I
have
to
start
the
vote.
Yeah.
A
Cool
all
right,
so
moving
on
the
next
agenda
item
is
second
director
seat
post
july
2020,
which
we
are
just
about
in,
I
feel
like
the
the
pr
that
I
have
is
is
close
to
landing
once
the
board
approves
it,
and
so
we
should
probably
start
working
on
election
process
and
such
moving
that
forward
taking
nominations
and
whatnot.
A
So
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
really
get
into
it
right
now,
but
we
should
start
down
that
path.
Asap
right.
A
A
A
Do
we
have
two
seats
open
or
about
to
be
open?
We
have
the
primary
seat,
which
is
the
elected
from
the
voting
members.
I
should
check
my
pr
so
I'm
correct
here,
so
this
is
laid
out
in
this
pr
I'll
share
the
link
here
once
I
get
it.
A
So
the
primary
cpc
director
must
be
a
current
cpc
member
and
then
the
secondary
one
must
be
an
active
openjs
collaborator.
A
So
these
two
seats
there's
the
third
one
which
is
attached
to
the
supporter
program,
but
focusing
on
these
two
seats,
there
had
been
discussion
that
we
should
stagger
these,
but
I'm
not
sure
exactly
where
we
landed
on
that.
So
how
should
we
move
forward
on
on
board
seats?
A
Should
we
simply
elect
these
two
seats
and
then
work
out
any
sort
of
staggering
moving
forward,
especially
as
the
supporter
program
starts
to
take
shape
and
we
understand
how
the
third
seat
will
look.
A
Currently,
it
is
michael
dawson
and
chris
borchers.
Okay,
michael,
was.
A
H
I
I
would
say
I'd
be
fine
with
like
I.
I
would
like
to
see
us
kind
of
start
trying
to
stagger
as
soon
as
possible,
just
because,
especially
both
of
them
have
a
lot
of
context
around
board,
seat,
stuff
and
it'd,
be
nice
to
at
least
you
know.
If
one
of
them
is
not
the
next
sports
person
like
if
they
don't
get
reelected
or
whatever
it
would
be
nice
for
them
to
be
able
to
share
that
context
with
whoever
kind
of
comes
on,
and
so
we
don't
have
to
like.
H
You
know
in
the
case
where
both
of
them
aren't
reelected
to
people
who
have
no
clue.
Like
you
know,
if
I
were
to
run
I'm
not
saying
I
am
because
I'm
definitely
not
but
like
if
I
were
to
run,
I
have
no
clue
what
that's
like.
You
know
that
it
would
be
nice
to
not
lose
that
context
and
like
be
able
to
share
that.
H
So
I
you
know,
I'm
I'm
in
favor
of
like
extending
one
of
their
terms,
I
don't
mind
who
I'm
fine
with
either,
but
that
I
think
that's
potentially
one
that
we'd
want
to
consider.
I
think
honestly,
probably
is
chris,
is:
is
your
seed
like
the
open,
js
seat
and
then
the
node
c
or
like
the
project
state,
and
then
michael,
is
the
node
c,
even
sorry,
what
was
that.
E
E
General,
like
the
community
representative,
one,
I
guess
the
the
the
other
thing
I
might
throw
in
there
is.
I
was
thinking
that
you
know
next
this
next
time
around,
I
might
run
for
the
cpc
seat
versus
the
community
seat
because
it's
no
longer
going
to
be
the
node
community
representation,
and
then
you
know
I'm
most
active
in
I'm.
Am
I
active
in
the
cpc?
B
When
we
we've
had
new
board
members
from
companies,
for
example
like
joint
and
google,
we
have
two
new
board
members
and
we've
had
some
onboarding
calls.
I've
jumped
on
the
call
and
todd
moore's
jumped
on
the
call
with
these
folks
and
had
one-on-ones
and
brought
him
up
to
speed.
So.
H
Yeah
and
I
I
would
have
assumed
that
we
would.
I
would
hope
that
we
continue
doing
that.
I
guess
the
the
context
that
I'm
bringing
for
that
is
like
from
the
perspective
of
participating
as
a
cpc
rep.
It
would
be
potentially
positive
to
have
that
as,
like.
You
know,
one
of
your
peers
in
the
cpc
helping
share
that
context.
H
At
least
I
found
that
useful
in
the
various
projects
I
participated
in
first
committee
stuff,
I
don't
know
I
I
I
would
like
to
see
a
stagger
if
we
can
now-
and
I
would
say
that
probably
it
makes
sense
to
phase
out
the
node
seat
into
the
whatever
the
next
like
or
foundation
seat
is
and
then
keep
the
the
current
foundation
seat,
but
that's
just
like
the
one
that
makes
most
logical
sense
to
me.
That's
also
assuming
like
that's.
H
I
realize
that's
also
me
volunteering
chris
for
six
six
months
of
work
that
I
probably
shouldn't
do
without
his
permission,
but
like
yeah,
that's
that's
how
I
would
you
know
if
we
were
to
do
that,
I
think
sooner
doesn't
really
hurt
and
it's
probably
something
that's
beneficial.
H
A
Yeah,
so
my
I,
I
agree
with
you
attorney
one
thing
that
comes
to
mind
is
we're
looking
at
having
three
seats.
So
should
it
be
every
four
months
and
in
a
way
that
gives
us
essentially
what
eight
months
to
get
the
supporter
program
or
at
least
that
third
seat
figured
out
which
which
isn't
bad
to
have
a
good?
You
know
horizon
there
to
be
aiming
for.
J
I
K
G
Yeah,
I
agree
with
that.
That's
a
good
point
even
twice
a
year
is
a
lot
of
election
time.
Yeah
I
mean
twice
a
year
is
good,
but
like
more,
it's
probably
gonna
be
painful.
I
think
we
should
stack
but
like,
except
that
we're
gonna
have
two
in
one.
Then
that's
fine.
B
The
third
board
seat
is
more
at
large
again
legally,
it's
very
hard
to
implement
a
third,
a
board
seat
with
2
000
members,
and
so
the
experience
from
some
of
the
other
foundations-
and
I
know
I
think
chris-
had
this
experience
as
well
at
js,
it's
better
to
separate
those
and
use
that
third
seed
as
a
as
an
appointed
community
seat
as
opposed
to
tying
it
to
the
you
know
who
joins
as
a
supporter
you
could
draw
from
that
pool,
but.
G
Yeah,
are
we
still
tied
to
the
metrics
that
sarah
just
mentioned,
though
I
mean?
Can
we
have
those
correlates
now?
Yes,
okay,.
A
Okay,
so
third
seed
aside,
it
seems
like
staggering
six
months
would
be
a
good
idea,
and
I
just
want
to
make
clear
too.
This
is
based
on
michael's
comment
like.
I
think
that
these
these
two
seats
in
particular
moving
forward,
won't
really
have
I
to
me
they
don't
they're
the
same
sort
of
seat
like
not
one
representing
something
and
the
other
different
like.
So
I
don't
think
you
know,
michael
if
you
want
to
run
for
the
main
seat,
if
they're
there's
just
kind
of
two
speeds.
E
E
So
you
know,
maybe
I
you
know
I
I'm
not
saying
I
I
I
wouldn't
run
for
the
other
one,
but
just
it
was
you
know
of
the
two.
If
you
were
to
make
a
choice,
that
would
probably
be
the
one
I
would
choose
to
run
for
right,
just
because
it's
it's
already
a
smaller
set
of
people
versus
you
know
a
potentially
larger
set
of
people
to
represent
the
community
and
leaving
you
know
space.
There
made
some
sense
to
me.
A
What
would
it
what
I
guess
at
least
the
next
question,
just
hypothetically
speaking,
if
if
the
primary
seats
went
first
and
michael
ran
for
it
and
michael
won,
what
would
that
mean?
I
don't
know
I
don't
know,
maybe
that's
something.
What.
E
H
That
still
introduces
the
thing
that,
like
it's
kind
of
intended
to
avoid
of
like
cool
now,
both
both
seats.
Theoretically,
if
neither
michael
nor
chris
get
elected
again,
both
of
them
are
out
right.
Yeah
that
introduces
the
exact
thing.
It's
it's
meant
to
avoid,
and
that's
if
we
want
to
take
that
one
time
cut.
That's
fine,
but
just
like,
I
wanted
to
point
that
out.
Yeah.
I
So
it
gets
a
good
point.
Tony
I
mean
not
to
get
too
deep
into
the
process,
but
I
would
just
say
I
mean
there
are
ways
of
if
that
were
to
happen
either
michael
or
I
or
both
of
us
could
either
permanently
or
temporarily
become
alternates
for
ibm
and
microsoft,
and
so
still
be
able
to
observe
the
board
meetings
and
give
guidance
to
the
new
representatives.
A
Cool
all
right,
interesting
great,
so
we
we
do
have
a
an
issue
open
for
wait.
No,
that's
second,
director
cd
post
july,
I
feel
like
we
should
probably
close
that
issue
and
maybe
make
a
a
new
issue
just
to
kind
of
outline
what
the
proposal
is
for
these
two
seats
moving
forward
and
then
start
to
move
down
that.
E
E
A
E
A
Cool
well
great
thanks.
I
appreciate
that
conversation
and
we'll
move
forward
there
and
we
still
have
a
little
bit
of
an
agenda
here.
Two
more
items
add
foundation.
White
copyright
guidance.
Toby
got
an
update
on
that
one.
No,
that's!
Okay!
Two!
I
know
okay
good,
I
saw
the
head
shake
responsible
security.
Disclosures
need
new
pr
to
move
to
stage
three.
E
Yeah,
so
it
so
stage
two
landed.
We
just
need
a
pr
at
stage
three.
I
I
just
mentioned,
as
we
were
in
the
meeting
today,
to
ask
marseille
if
you'd
like
to
open
that.
So
one
way
the
other
will
get
that
opened
and-
and
basically
I
you
know
we'll
just
need
to-
I
don't
think
that
affected
our
we've
agreed.
It
doesn't
affect
our
governance,
so
we
just
need
to
to
approve
and
land
it
cool.
A
All
right
great,
that
is
our
agenda.
Do
we
want
to
talk
about
anything
else,
explore
anything
else?
For
you
know
we
decided
to
take
10
minutes
for
private
session,
which
we
can
go
to
now,
or
we
can
talk
about
any
of
these
other
things.
J
Just
a
quick
update
on
the
supporter
program-
I
wasn't
here
for
the
beginning
of
the
call
to
add
it
to
the
agenda,
but
I
think
the
next
step
is
scheduling
meetings
so
I'll,
probably
just
to
talk
about.
What's
still
outstanding,
so
I'll
probably
send
out
a
doodle
sometime
this
week.
A
Great,
thank
you,
sarah,
and
thank
you
for
the
update.
One
thing
that
we
could
talk
about
is
the
annual
review
process.
If
we
want
to
kind
of
check
out
about
that,
we
can
capture
some
things
and
then
drop
it
into
a
proposal
or
an
issue
and
go
from
there.
E
Oh
yeah,
thanks
for
the
reminder,
so
the
the
one
thing
I
did
want
to
come
back
to
was,
and
it's
related
to
the
elections
that
we're
talking
about
is
that
at
the
board
level,
the
elections
for
the
silver
and
end
user
positions
are
open.
So,
like
nominations
are
being
taken
from
july
22nd
to
30th,
the
voting
is
going
to
be
july.
31St
august
6th
and
the
new
directors
will
be.
You
know,
brought
on
one
will
be
notified
august
7th
and
brought
on
soon
after
that.
E
G
Yeah,
I'm
actually
curious
how
that
works.
If
there's
a
pointer
to
how
that
works
precisely,
it
would
be
great.
That's
in
the
bylaws
I
assume,
but.
E
G
But
that's
only
the
actual
members
that
wrote
on
this
right,
yeah.
B
Yeah
that
was
interesting.
This
one
other
board
update
the
board,
approved
a
partnership
proposal
with
major
league
hacking.
It's
not
exclusive.
I
had
a
call
with
jonathan
gottfried,
who
is
the
co-founder
and
super
cool
really
aligned,
and
so
I
had
talked
to
joe.
Maybe
we
have
him
come
present
to
the
cpc
and
we
can
brainstorm
brainstorm.
Some
ideas
and
the
ideas
just
initially
is
thinking
of
ways
we
can
partner
with
major
league
hacking
in
a
way
that
scales
our
people
and
our
content
to
all
of
their
hackathons.
B
A
A
I
think
the
the
the
core
of
the
issue
that
emily
raised
was
about
growth
projects.
So
if
we
wanted
to,
we
could
focus
on
that.
First.
You
know
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
time,
but
it
did
seem
like
there
were
expectations
of
like
a
growth
plan
for
growth
projects,
which
I
don't
know
if
anybody
is
actually
doing
so.
We
should
maybe
figure
out
what
that
looks
like
as
a
part
of
this
process
and
how
it's
evaluated.
E
I
think
I
think
a
good
conversation
to
kick
off
with
might
also
be
like.
Currently,
the
the
governance
is
written
as
growth
projects
are
working
towards
becoming
impact
projects,
and
I
think
the
review
process.
You
know,
if
that's,
if
that's
the
goal,
then
the
review
process
makes
sense.
To
have
certain
things
like
you
know.
Are
we
now
at
you
know,
is
it?
E
Is
it
ready?
Is
the
project
ready
to
graduate
or
not
right?
At
this
point,
and
and
some
things
like
that
or
but
I
know
the
discussion
we
had
last
time
was:
should
that
actually
be
what
growth
projects
mean,
and
so,
if
we
change
that,
that
would
then
change
what
the
review
would
look
like
and
so
maybe
making
sure
we're
aligned
in
terms
of
what
a
growth
project
is,
and
the
goal
first
makes
sense.
A
A
L
Know
definition
of
what
an
impact
project
is,
at
the
end
of
the
day
right
and
as
as
a
growth
project,
I'm
definitely
interested
in
going
to
persia
further
and
further
what
it
means
to
become
an
impact
project
is
then
part
of
that
definition,
and
if
it
means
something
that
web.ob
becomes
at
some
point,
then
I'm
fine
announcing
it
as
a
impact
project.
E
A
So
the
definition
of
impact
is
the
impact
stages
for
projects
that
have
reached
their
growth
goals
and
are
now
on
a
sustaining
cycle
of
development,
maintenance
and
long-term
support
impact
stage.
Projects
are
used
commonly
in
enterprise
production
environments
and
have
large
well-established
project.
A
A
So
an
at-large
project
are
projects
which
the
cpc
believes
are
or
have
the
potential
to
be
important
to
the
ecosystem
of
top
level
projects
or
the
js
ecosystem
as
a
whole.
They
may
be
early
stage
projects
just
getting
started
or
they
may
be
long-established
projects
with
minimal
resource
needs.
E
I
think
the
like
the
the
way
it
seems
to
be
written
is
like
you
can
be
an
at-large
project
and
be
perfectly
happy
forever,
but
growth
projects,
the
ideas
that
there's
more
the
foundation
will
provide
more
resources
to
help
them
get
to
impact,
and
I
think
then
again
impact
also
the
foundation
expects
to
provide
more
resources
in
terms
of
marketing
and
so
forth.
E
It
also
comes
along
with
some
expectations,
though,
that
we've
written
in
terms
of
you
know
having
lts
support
plans
having
moved
to
open
governance,
you
know
along
those
lines,
so
it's
kind
of
like
you,
you
know
if
you,
if
you've
got
to
impact
you
get
that
more
ongoing
support,
but
then
there's
also,
you
know
we
have
a
higher
bar,
because
you
know
that's
one
of
the
leading
projects
for
the
for
the
foundation.
E
We
expect
to
be
a
good
example
of
the
things
that
we'd
like
most
projects
to
do
growth
is
that
in
between
stage
of
needs
extra
resources
to
get
to
that
impact
stage,
you
know
in
time,
maybe
to
to
implement
some
of
those
higher
expectations.
E
G
So
so
why
don't
we
sort
of
mimic
the
process
we
have
in
place
for
onboarding
for
growth,
in
terms
of
like
having,
for
example,
an
issue
with
sort
of
like
points
that
you're
supposed
to
to
hit?
I
mean
issues,
you
know
things
that
you're
supposed
to
do
in
order
to
to
qualify
to
move
to
impact.
E
L
Would
it
make
sense
to
support
these
definitions
by
adding
certain
types
of
numbers
that
the
project
has
to
reach
when
it
says,
for
instance,
projects
that
have
themselves
become
platforms
for
other
projects
like?
Is
there
a
specific
number
that
a
number
of
platforms
for
other
projects
to
like
or
a
healthy
number
of
commuters?
Like?
Does
it
mean
like,
like
150,
like
what?
What
is
what
would
be
the.
E
I
think
we
we
chose
in
the
past
specifically
to
leave
that
vague,
because
it's
hard
to
pick
a
number
that's
going
to
make
sense
in
all
cases
like
if,
if
and
so
it's
for
the
cpc
to
look
at
that
and
say
well,
okay,
if
there's
you
know
one
committer
who's,
not
from
this
one.
You
know
all
the
committers
are
from
one
company
and
there's
one:
that's
maybe
unhealthy,
whereas
if
there's
you
know
five
and
five,
maybe
that's
not
a
huge
number
of
committers,
but
it's
still
healthy.
It's
it.
G
I
mean
to
to
emily's
question.
I
think
it
would
just
be
interesting
to
have
a
similar
thing,
as
we
have
for
onboarding
was
an
issue
for
every
project.
That's
in
growth
was
those
different
points
and
we
can
just
like
have
a
look
at
those
and
then
ask
the
maintainers
or
the
you
know
the
technical
steering
committee
of
that
project
to
actually
take
those
boxes
and
at
some
point
the
project
is
ready
to
graduate
and
that's
it.
E
You
know,
I
think,
the
the
the
reason
that
the
yearly
review
was
put
in
is
it's
it's
kind
of
expected
that
you
don't
stay
in
growth
forever.
Right
like
it's.
It's
a
you
get
extra
resources
because
you're
trying
to
get
to
the
next
stage.
If
you've
decided
you're
happy
where
you
are,
then
you
know
you
can
just
go
back
to
being
that
large
or
or
wherever
and
be
happy
right.
E
A
My
understanding
is
that
the
growth
projects
would
develop
their
own
growth
plan
that
would
align
with
the
acceptance
criteria
here.
But
but
you
know,
some
of
the
details
are
defined
by
the
project
itself.
K
Do
we
have
prior
examples
of
growth
plans
that
we
consider
well
written
that
you
know
somebody
might
look
at
that
and
and
be
able
to
kind
of
intuit
what
a
good
growth
plan
comprises
and
and
kind
of
what
they
what
they
should
cover
in
their
group.
J
J
Exists
somewhere
else,
I
know
that
there's
a
few
different
open
source
orgs
trying
to
figure
this
out,
but
I've
got
someone
hatched.
E
Yeah
here
we've
not
had
a
growth
plan.
Yet,
as
far
as
I
know
like
we
we've
never
looked
at
one
from
the
cpc
as
a
cpc
or
you
know,
we've
got
both
projects,
but
the
the
you
know
emily
pointing
out
that
we
needed
to
do.
This
review
has
been
the
first
time
we've
come
back
to
yeah,
okay,
we
actually
should
be.
G
What
I'm
hearing
from
here,
which
I
hadn't
thought
about,
which
I
thought
is
really
interesting,
is
there's
a
distinction
between
the
plan
of
how
you
get,
which
is
basically
like
a
description
of
how
you
get
to
meet
the
criteria
that
is
set
like
they're.
Not
the
same
thing.
I
hadn't
thought
about
it.
That
way,
I
think
that's
good,
but
I
also
do
think
that
the
criteria
as
a
a
a
list
of
like
thing
items
that
you
have
to
check,
just
as
the
onboarding
is,
is
actually
kind
of
effective
to
to
drive
the
progress.
E
G
Trying
to
say
sorry,
joe
I'll,
be
real,
quick.
What
I
was
trying
to
say,
michael,
is
the
way
that
this
has
been
working
for.
Onboarding
was
an
issue
that
actually
has
like
the
list
that
you
can
tick
seems
like
a
good
way
to
work,
and
it
would
just
suggest
that
we
started
set
something
up
like
that
for
growth
at
growth
project.
G
A
We
could
convert
this
to
a
checklist
and
then
have
the
project
itself
kind
of
tweak
it
to
fit
their
their.
You
know
plan
robin
did
you
have
something
to
add.
B
Yeah,
I
was
gonna
say
a
lot
of
our
policies.
It
seems
like
get
adjusted
as
they're
being
implemented,
so
I
think
everyone
should
look
at
the
list
as
as
guidance
on
the
first
time
reviews
and
then
it
gets
fine-tuned
when
it's
implemented,
but
probably
not
get
too
hung
up
on
the
list.
Because
then
maybe
the
reviews
will
never
happen
or
it'll
slow
things
down.
So.
E
The
start
of
your
growth
plan
is
like
here's,
where
we
here's
what
we
think
we
need
to
do
like
some
of
them
are
already
checked
off,
right
and
and
then,
but
I
think
that
some
of
them
are
going
to
require
elaboration
for
sure
right,
like
you
know,
in
terms
of
whether
whether
you
think
you've
made
it
to
impact
or
not,
is
it
you
know?
Sometimes
it's
like
well.
Are
we
being
used
by
enough
of
the
community?
Does
the
community
agree?
I
don't
know
how
you
like.
It's
not
just
a
check
mark
necessarily.
A
For
folks
who
are
on
gallery
view,
you
might
have
noticed
jordan's
got
a
little
buddy
there.
Sorry.
A
Sorry
cool,
so
I
yeah
I
mean,
I
think
a
proposal
for
review
process
would
be
great.
I
think,
perhaps
starting
with
some
issues
for
growth
projects
with
the
checklist
that's
kind
of
adapted,
so
their
growth
plan
makes
sense
to
you.
You
should
just
try
to
start
moving
down
a
path
and
see
what
takes
shape.
A
Cool
and
you
know
toby
and
christian
as
a
couple
of
growth
representatives,
you
know,
let
us
know
how
we
can
help
or
what
we
can
do
and
if
you
have
thoughts.