►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - August 20 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
B
B
All
right
and
with
that,
let's
move
on
to
items
that
we're
following
up
on
from
last
time,
I
will
start
with
number
285
the
jquery
project
infrastructure
last
week.
The
action
item
was
to
continue
the
conversation
we
started
with
dave
and
others
in
the
infrastructure,
and
I
was
going
to
look
into
scheduling
an
infra
working
group
meeting.
B
D
This
is
the
swapping
references
mm-hmm
just
waiting
for
clarity
from
the
board.
Our
our
meeting
is
on
Friday,
so
by
Friday
definitely
have
something
figured
out,
but
the
biggest
one
right
now
is
just
figuring
out.
How
do
we
handle
this
when
we
don't
have
anything
it
like?
We
have
an
email
thread,
there's
no
objections,
it's
pretty
straightforward,
but
we
just
don't
have
like
a
process
or
policy
around
these
kinds
of
approvals
via
email,
so
we'll
work
that
out
in
the
next
call
I
do
notice
that
we
have
some
attendees.
It
needs
to
be
promoted.
Oh.
D
A
Yeah
I
guess
semi
related
to
that
I'd
had
a
quick
chat
with
Chris
or
slack
and
I
think
we're
gonna
create
a
board
that
looks
like
what
we
haven't
had
min
so
like
issues
that
have
been
taken
to
the
board.
So
I
think
this
is
a
good
example
of
something
we
can
have
in
there
just
so
that
we
remember
to
follow
it
up
and
then
can
close
it
out
of
there.
Once
we've
got
the
board
answer.
B
All
right
moving
on
to
issue
number
289-
and
we
discussed
this
last
week
and
determined
that
the
action
item
was
that
we
would
need
somebody
to
open
a
PR
to
address
the
clarifications
that
Toby
raised.
It
looks
like
the
miles
opened
at
PR
on
number
305
number
305
to
address
this
mile.
So
you
want
to
talk
about
what
you
did
here.
D
The
main
substance
of
the
change
is
in
the
Charter.
It
changes
the
term
maintainer
to
governing
body
and
instead
of
saying
a
collaborator
with
in
a
project
elected
to
represent
a
project,
says
a
group
of
collaborators
within
a
project
elected
to
represent
the
project,
an
official
decision-making
role
so
that
you
know
the
best
I,
don't
like
the
project
elected
to
represent
the
project,
but
I'm
not
going
to
bite
shed
too
much
on
that
language.
D
Maintainer
itself
within
the
Charter
only
appeared
twice.
It
appeared
once
in
the
definition
of
contributor
and
again
under
the
section
of
non
responsibility.
In
each
instance
it
was
it
was
being
used
as
maintainer,
not
maintainer.
So
there
was
like
just
a
copy/paste
of
governing
body
to
replace
maintainer
x'
just
worked.
D
We
can
bring
this
to
the
board
to
ensure
that
there's
no
concerns
on
friday,
but
we
do
need-
I
guess,
a
few
more
plus
ones
in
here
and
then
I'm
assuming
we
probably
at
the
very
least,
want
to
have
a
similar
waiting
period
to
what
we
do
for
governance.
But
I
don't
think
we
have
an
explicit
amount
of
time
that
we
have
in
the
governance.
We.
D
Is
something
about
charter
changes
in
the
governance,
specifically
as
pull
requests
that
change
the
Charter
and
must
meet
the
following
conditions
and
in
addition
to
the
ones
listed
for
changing
the
governance?
Okay,
so
then
it's
14
dates,
right
or
consensus
is
reached
in
a
meeting
with
quorum
of
voting
members.
So
today,
I
don't
think
we
have
time.
C
D
D
But
I
should
probably
also
do
a
better
job
of
transitioning
those
responsibilities
I'm
just
like
anxious
and
I
just
do
it
right
away,
but
maybe
that
board
that
you're
talking
about
I
could
serve
as
like
a
source
of
truth
and
things
could
be
put
on
and
then
Brian
could
look
at
that.
Instead
of
relying
on
any
individual
yeah.
A
B
Alright,
ready
for
me
to
move
on
yep
and
number
288
is
related
and
that
we
identified
possibly
duplication
of
onboarding
checklist
and
last
week's
action
item
was
that
Joe
was
going
to
add
some
templates
to
the
CPC
and
I
know
he
wasn't
able
to
make
time
for
that,
but
we
also
got
another
request
related
to
this.
For
cleanup
from
miles.
That's
on
pull
requests
number
304,
my
house,
you
want
to
share
this
work.
E
D
I
mean
this
one
doesn't
seem
to
have
consensus
about
what
to
do.
I
just
got
it
like
something
going,
so
we
have
the
onboarding
checklist
existing
in
two
different
places
in
the
repo.
It
exists
in
the
template
for
new
project
application,
it's
in
the
under
the
heading,
onboarding
checklist,
and
it's
also
in
dot
github,
slash
issue,
template,
slash,
project,
onboarding
checklist
and
so
there's
kind
of
like
a
couple
different
things
like
having
it
duplicated.
D
It
means
that
if
we
change
it
in
one
place,
another
place
could
end
up
kind
of
falling
behind,
which
is
less
than
ideal,
although
if
we
remove
it
from
the
issue
template,
then
it's
a
pain
in
the
butt
to
go
and
copy
and
paste
it.
But
then,
if
we
have
it
only
in
the
template,
it's
not
really
in
the
most
discoverable
place.
Unless
you
go
to
make
an
issue,
which
is
something
that
you
would
be
doing
after
the
incubation
phase,
so
I
don't
think
that
there's
really
a
right
answer
here.
D
I
do
think
that
the
number
of
times
that
people
are
going
to
be
creating
issues
will
likely
be
lower
than
the
number
of
people
who
will
be
looking
at
the
new
project
application
just
to
get
an
idea
of
what
the
process
is,
which
is
the
reason
why
I
set
it
up
the
way
that
I
did
but
we've
got.
You
know
everything
from
I
think
that
we
should
swap
it
to
I,
don't
see
a
problem
in
the
duplication,
so
we
definitely
don't
have
consensus
on
how
to
move
forward
here
and
I.
A
D
A
A
I
thought
it
was
the
other
way
around
that
like
if
you
found
the
template
in
the
other
place,
you
could
click
to
get
to
the
template
and
you'd
look
at
it.
But
okay,
that's
the
possibility,
because
I
think
the
other
way
I'd
have
no
problem
right,
because
then,
if
you
created
one
you'd
still
you
you'd
automatically
get
it
and
if
you
went
and
discovered
it
in
the
other
place,
you
can,
you
know,
have
a
link
to
the
template,
which
is
one
extra
click,
but
not
a
big
deal
right.
Yeah.
D
A
F
F
From
my
perspective,
the
only
thing
I
was
really
interested
in
was
to
know
which
one
was
the
source
of
truth
and
just
a
fact.
They
were
like
two
long
lists
that
I
had
to
like
visually.
Compare
it's
like
annoying,
so
I
was
just
wondering
if
the
other
option
could
not
be
just
to
say
well,
one
of
it
is
this
worth
of
truth
and
actually
right
that
on
top
of
it
and
and
maybe
a
comments,
the
other
one
that
that's
a
copy
of
the
other
one.
F
B
A
D
D
B
B
Moving
to
issue
number
287,
this
is
about
our
beloved
code
and
learn
and
well
I
guess
they
took
more
specifically
rich
and
on
his
beloved
code
and
learn,
and
our
action
item
was
pinging.
The
TSC,
no
TFC,
calm,
calm
and
admin
channels,
also
making
sure
that
we
spoke
with
rich
and
anna
about
lifting
this
as
an
open,
Jas
cross
project
initiative,
Manila
or
Christian.
Do
either
of
you
want
to
speak
to
this
I'm.
G
H
H
To
summarize
Rich's
responses,
our
initial
goal
to
lift
it
well
keep
changing
the
format.
I
think
our
main
reason
for
ending
it
was
we
wanted
to
use
the
opportunity
of
extending
it
beyond
no
gesture
also
change
out
the
format,
because
it's
been
something
that
has
burned
out
some
people
to
organize
and
their
suggestions
have
been
to
make
sure
that
whatever
format
we
take,
we
do
prioritize
lowering
the
amount
of
upfront
effort
it.
It
would
take
to
prepare
for
this.
So
we've
worked
on
a
couple
of
ideas
to
do
that
so
far,.
A
One
thing
I
might
throw
in
my
my
thought
is
I,
don't
know
if
we
want
to
change
the
term
like
the
code
and
learn
part
was
a
very
specific
concept.
Mm-Hmm,
whereas
I
could
see
something
with
you
know,
the
goal
was
to
try
and
drive
engagement,
help
people
get
engaged.
You
know
as
we
go
up
a
level.
The
code
part
might
be
harder,
but
other
pieces
might
be
easier.
Like
you
know,
is
it
is
it?
You
know
like
getting
involved
in
the
foundation
type
session.
A
C
It's
it's
also
worth
noting
that
I,
don't
think
the
original
intent
may
be
laid
out
as
well.
The
the
intent
that
was
just
stated
I
should
say
just
played
out
as
well
as
maybe
it
was
hoped,
I
think
we've,
you
know
of
you
know
if
you
take
a
hundred
percent
of
the
people
at
each
unlearn
event,
there's
maybe
1%
who
continue
to
be
involved
in
the
project
in
any
way,
they
usually
end
up
making
that
contribution
and
dropping
off,
which
there's
nothing
wrong
with
that.
C
H
A
A
Actually,
that
might
be
interesting,
I
guess,
as
you
go
to
multiple
projects,
you
know,
for
example,
I
have
no
idea
what
it
takes
to
get
a
peer
into
any
of
the
other
projects
and
something
that
basically
got
everybody
comfortable
with
how
to
contribute
to
any
one
of
the
projects
might
actually
get
more
cross-pollination.
For
example,.
B
B
And
and
I
believe
that
the
the
collab
summit
planning
group,
which
has
been
meeting
on
a
weekly
cadence,
is
kind
of
trying
to
carry
carry
that
work
as
well.
In
addition
to
planning
the
collapse,
it
you
know
kind
of
figuring
out
the
the
code
and
learn
with
that
kind
of
goes
hand-in-hand,
so
I'm,
so
good
yeah.
Maybe
we'll
wait
and
see
what
they
have
to
hear.
One.
B
A
B
All
right
next
item
number
279
is
will
request
to
add
a
draft
charter
templates.
We
now
have
reviews
from
the
folks
that
that
we
asked
for
specifically
and
we're
going
to
need
to
ask
for
review
from
foundation
legal
counsel
and
Mike
Dolan
asked
me
to
work
with
him
to
get
council's
eyes
on
this.
The
one
open
there
were
two
kind
of
points
were
live
on
this.
B
It's
currently
titled
establishment
of
the
project
TSC,
and
there
was
some
discussion
on
whether
we
wanted
to
rephrase
that
too,
because
it
might
be
unclear
might
be
misunderstood
to
focus
on
project
leadership
or
project
structure
and
I.
Don't
feel
very
strongly
about
this,
so
I
in
terms
of
what
that
that
phrases,
so
I
thought,
maybe
a
moment
or
two
just
getting
thoughts,
would
would
help
spark
what
the
right
sentence
should
be.
A
A
You
know
it's
right,
I
think
you
know,
establishment
of
the
TSC
the
TSC
is
that
is
you
know
what
we
considered
is
the
project
leadership,
and
so
that's
just
the
words
that
came
that
sound
good
to
me,
but
I
know
it's
I
I
would
almost
suggest
I,
don't
see
anybody
commenting
one
way
or
the
other.
So
whatever
sounds
good
too.
Does
anybody
else
have
any
any
comments
on
leadership,
project
structure
or
a
project
leadership
I?
Would.
F
I
A
E
B
B
A
A
A
B
B
H
With
this
particular
one,
we
had
two
options:
either
create
a
brand
new
summit,
repo,
sorry
yeah
summit,
repo
in
open,
Jess
or
imported
or
transferred
from
no
Jess.
We
had
some
explicit
plus
ones
in
the
thread
in
open
J's
foundation,
but
then
we
made
a
new
issue
in
admin.
So
far,
no
objections.
It's
been
open
for
six
days,
I
posted
a
comment
for
any
final
comments
from
people.
H
A
G
A
B
B
A
H
A
It's
like
the
other
one
talks
about
like
a
code
of
conduct
panel
and
describes
who's
in
it,
and
so
this
should
either
refer
to
that.
As
in
terms
of
like
how
do
we,
how
does
the
code
in
contact
and
we'll
get
involved
or
the
PR
should
be
extended
to
change
that
wording
so
that
they
both
talk
about
the
same
thing?
A
H
H
D
Should
like
I
mean
the
report,
II
should
be
able
to
ask
the
reporter
in
report.
Ii
should
be
able
to
request
on
anima
T,
but
they
should
not
necessarily
be
able
to
say
hey.
We
don't
want
anything
about
this
made
public
also
another
one
that
was
kind
of
big,
for
this
you've
only
created
a
single
file
for
the
proposal.
D
There
is
a
template
for
making
proposals,
and,
if
you
take
a
look
inside
of
the
proposals
directory,
there
is
a
template
file,
I'm
going
to
drop
it
in
the
chat
right
now,
a
bunch
of
stuff
that
is
inside
of
the
proposal
right
now
that
are
framed
as
questions
should
be
inside
of
that
template.
Instead,
okay,.
H
D
And
then
like
in
general,
if
there's
things
that
need
to
be
filled
in,
they
could
be
TBD.
But
if
there's
like
hanging
questions
or
things
that
we
aren't
sure
about
or
just
like
kind
of
the
the
meta
discussion
of
the
document
itself
makes
more
sense
within
kind
of
a
read
meet
for
the
proposal.
If
you
look
at
the
other
proposals,
there's
good
examples
of
how
that
looks.
H
D
If
I
recall
correctly,
you
can
spin
up
your
own
instance
of
beacon
and
then
make
multiple
projects
within
beacon
like
have
their
own
individual
individual,
like
reporting
channels,
but
as
we
scale
up
to
serve
like
31
different
projects,
I,
don't
all
thirty-one
are
gonna.
Have
things
hit
the
fan
in
the
same
day,
no
did
something
slightly
more
sophisticated
to
ensure
that
things
don't
fall
through
the
cart
through
the
cracks
that.
H
D
A
Good
I
was
just
agreeing
okay,
I
was
just
gonna.
Add,
like
I
would
favor
us
to
get
something:
that's
simple,
but
but
workable
and
land
that
versus
delaying
to
get
a
full-featured
and
like
and
then
do
the
full.
You
know
do
a
more
full-featured
one
as
a
follow-on.
Yes,
so
that
we
actually,
you
know
I,
guess
it
depends
if
it's
like
a
week
to
get
the
full
featured
one
great,
but
it'd
be
nice
to
have
something
in
place.
Just
in
case
we
do
get
a
report
right,
yeah.
D
H
D
Think
correct
I
think
that
we
could
maybe
lift
parts
of
it
as
documentation,
play
it
by
ear
and
see.
We
could
also
like
break
it
into
multiple
proposals
and
try
to
push
through
a
proposal
faster
of
kind
of
like
an
MVP,
so
like
introducing
beacon,
for
example,
or
like
more
in-depth
process,
could
be
their
own
proposals
separate
from
something
that's
just
about
reporting
or
coming
up
with
a
moderation
team.
B
A
I
A
D
C
D
We
could
kind
of
do
that
on
a
case-by-case
basis,
as
we
have
so
like.
Arguably,
like
the
governance
changes
that
we're
making
could
have
been
their
own
proposals,
but
they
don't
really
need
to
be
for
it's
worth
like
Manila
tc39,
which
is
kind
of
you
know,
inspired
this
process
changes
to
the
specs.
Some
of
them
can
come
in
just
as
pull
requests
directly
against
the
spec
without
a
full
proposal.
Those
do
end
up
going
to
the
committee
to
approve
and
more
or
less
like,
if
no
one
objects
to
them
going
through
his
pull
request.
D
They
go
through
through
his
own
requests
and
if
someone
says
I
feel
like
this
should
be
a
proposal
that
it
turns
into
a
proposal.
So
we
really
could
just
work
in
expecting
people.
To
be
honest,
and
just
you
know,
if
you
feel
like
something,
doesn't
need
to
be
a
proposal
put
in
as
a
pull
request
and
trust
that
if
people
disagree
with
that,
they'll
speak
up,
yeah
I,
think
that
makes
sense.
D
B
Okay
and
it
sounds
like
we
have
a
path
forward
on
this
on
these
related
issues,
I'm
looking
at
the
time
we're
at
2:55,
let
me
see
what
do
we
think
we
can
get?
We
do
have
number
263,
which
is
improved
governance
for
regular
members.
There's
some
related
PRS,
Myles
and
Mike.
Do
you
want
to
give
Michael?
Do
you
want
to
give
any
update
on.
A
Sure
I
can
just
let
me
pull
that
up.
So
basically,
it's
just
a
to
the
governance
to
basically
say
what
the
requirements
are
and
the
process
to
be
followed.
You
know,
basically,
it
says
you
know
the
as
we've
already
got
in
the
the
existing
governance
charter.
The
regular
member
adds
appeared
as
themselves.
This
clarifies
that
when
it's
approved,
when
there's
no
us
any
exceptions,
there's
two
more
approvals
by
voting
CPC
members,
the
pr
has
been
opened
at
least
one
week.
A
A
It
needs
to
send
a
notification
to
the
project
contacts,
because
we've
said
that
you
know
regular
members
need
to
be
part
of
a
project
for
three
months
and
this
is
kind
of
our
low
touch
way
of
validating
that
and
it's
what
we
agreed
to
do
and
that
they
also
be
added
added
to
the
CPC
regular
members.
Thank
you
models
for
fixing
that
team
and
introduced
at
the
next
CPC
meeting.
B
A
B
Okay,
so
everyone
take
a
look
at
that
and
any
Plus
Ones
or
questions
or
comments.
I'm,
not
gonna,
try
and
get
through
any
more
because
we
are
basically
at
the
top
of
the
hour
I
will
instead.
Thank
you
all
for
coming
and
ask
if
there's
any
other
business
to
bring
today
before
we
wrap
up
no
okay,
cool
I
will
now
stop
the
share.