►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - July 7, 2020
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
Just
a
couple,
and
obviously
today
is
our
late
day
for
meetings,
but
next
Tuesday
I
wanted
to
make
sure
everybody
had
in
their
calendar,
in
addition
to
our
and
standards
meeting
at
2:00
p.m.
Eastern
and
our
CPC
meeting
at
noon.
Eastern
we're
gonna,
have
a
last
collab
summit
planning
meeting
at
1:00
Eastern
and
that
the
goal
there
is
just
to
go
through
and
do
a
retrospective
of
the
collab
summit,
and
thank
you
all
so
much
for
for
the
work
and
the
support
for
that
event.
We
want
to
just
go
through
that.
B
If
you
have
feedback
on
the
collab
summit
in
particular,
would
love
for
you
to
come
to
that
meeting,
calling
the
CPC
meeting
and,
as
a
reminder,
there's
been
a
small
survey
going
around
about
that.
So
any
feedback
you
have
is
warmly
welcomed
either
on
the
summit
or
on
the
open
dance
world.
So
that's
sort
of
the
big
deal.
We've
also
got
the
no
security
working
group
doing
their
AMA
to
tomorrow.
B
A
C
A
C
Quick
announcement
so
past
few
weeks,
past
month
or
so
the
website
redesign
team
was
trying
to
move
their
bar
weekly
meetings
to
weekly
meetings.
We
have
officially
done
that
we
have
gone
from
12
p.m.
to
2
p.m.
now
every
week
on
Thursdays.
So
that
is
a
new
thing.
We
it's
been
two
weeks
since
we
have
started.
Attendance
has
been
a
little
low
just
because
it's
a
new
new
time
change,
so
people
may
be
still
getting
this
time
are
getting
used
to
it
and
also
we
had
open
jazz
world
and
things
like
that.
C
D
Don't
have
anything
any
updates
from
the
board,
although
there
is
one
topic
we're
talking
a
little
bit
later
about
in
terms
of
like
the
updating,
the
CLA
to
the
Apache,
Apache
style
licenses,
and
the
next
meeting
is
I
believe
not
next
week
but
the
week
after
or
let
me
just
double
check.
So
if
there
is
something
coming
up
yes,
the
week
of
the
24th.
Just
let
me
know
that
you
want
me
to
bring
up
great
great,
a.
A
A
If
not,
we
will
jump
into
the
agenda
I
based
on
Toby's
request
to
put
the
CLA
conversation
at
the
end
or
the
second
half
again.
So
the
first
thing
in
the
Google
Doc
is
the
added
membership
program.
This
is
a
pull
request
that
Sarah
opened
and
we've
got
some
commentary
on
here
or
comments.
Sarah,
do
you
want
to
get
us
up
to
speed
and
yeah.
E
Said
the
two
big
outstanding
pieces
of
feedback
are
the
name
I
think
it's
a
good
thing
to
brainstorm.
There's
a
loaded
term
where
it
comes
to
membership
that
it
might
be
legal
membership.
People
have
suggested
the
term
supporters,
which
sounds
great
for
me.
I,
don't
know
if
anyone
that
is
better
at
marketing
can
come
up
with
something
a
little
more
catchy
but
I
think
that's
the
big
outstanding
thing.
Additionally,
there
is
also
some
feedback
on
closing
on
making
sure
that
the
newsletter
continues
to
be
made
available
for
free
to
all
project
contributors.
E
A
F
A
F
Well,
if
I,
if
I,
could
one
question
I
had
on
the
individual
membership
I
noticed
the
membership
fee
became
a
part
of
the
proposal.
I
was
wondering,
if
maybe
it,
maybe
this
isn't
the
right
place
to
talk
about
it,
but
there
may
be
some
tooling
considerations
there
in
terms
of
actually
collecting
the
fee.
That
can
we
might
want
to
maybe
work
through
some
of
the
some
of
the
infrastructure
discussions,
because
in
the
past
that
has
been
has
been
a
question.
So
maybe
maybe.
D
F
F
That's
exactly
it
so
it
kind
of
doesn't
matter
the
doesn't
matter
the
amount.
It's
it's
more.
The
logistics
on
the
backend
of
making
sure
it
all
works,
and
since
my
job
is
to
make
sure
all
the
logistics
work
on
the
backend
I
should
probably
probably
figure
out.
You
know
just
kind
of
how
things
would
work.
E
F
F
D
F
Are
some
projects
which
do
have
individual
your
participant
programs,
I
I,
don't
know,
I'd
have
to
ask
around
and
see
if
they're
actually
charging
we
do
have
the
ability
to
do.
You
know
credit
card
based
transactions
and
things
like
that.
We
certainly
use
it
for
for
other
things,
but
but
yeah
I
think
it
would
maybe
just
be
worth
going
through
and
figuring
out
like
how
it
will
all
be
wired
together.
Yeah.
E
A
D
Through
the
proposal
process,
they
cuz
I
think
that's
the
doc
great,
not
sure.
There's
too
much
more,
it's
kind
of
like
at
each
stage
like
the
moving
from
one
stage
to
the
other.
It's
really
just
they
rename
like
if,
unless
there's
some
questions
that
have
been
answered
or
changed
its
kind
of
renamed,
the
the
stage
level,
that's
in
the
doc
and
move
it
from
one
directory
to
another.
E
A
A
D
A
D
E
D
On
this,
one
I
think
that,
like,
though,
the
one
around
whether
the
newsletter
is
worth
maybe
a
little
bit
more
discussion
here
and
like
I,
think
the
concern
was
not
only
to
project
members
but
just
publicly
at
all
and
so
I
wonder
what
like
the
the
foundation
marketing
people
think
on
that
front
like
is
that
something
they
is
a
vehicle
to
get
out
to
a
broader
audience,
or
would
it
be
okay?
If
it
say
you
had
to
pay
and
become
a
supporter
to
actually
get
it.
B
I
mean
I
I
would
like
to
weigh
in
as
the
author
of
that
weekly
newsletter,
and
you
know
I
think
really.
Overall,
the
readership
is
not
too
great.
You
know
it's
about
a
hundred
I,
think
subscribers
and
and
I
think
people
find
value
in
that,
but
not
obviously
so
much
that
we've
we've
hit.
Some
kind
of
you
know
exponential
growth
in
terms
of
people
subscribing
to
it.
So
I
think
that
proposal
to
you
know
leave
it.
B
Leave
the
subscription
settings
for
the
people
who
have
already
subscribed,
but
then
to
to
make
it
a
perk
of
of
supporter
ship
is
a
really
good
one,
and
you
know
I
I'm
a
proponent
of
it.
I
think
it.
It
is
a
value,
add
for
people
who
do
care
and
are
committed,
so
it
makes
it
made
sense
to
me,
but
that's
my
two
cents.
D
D
G
H
So
I
I
wonder
if
it
needs
to
be
something:
that's
actually
a
perk
or
just
something
we
just
do.
You
know
because,
like
I
do
think
it's
really
useful,
but
I
I
can't
see
something
going
out
there
saying
I
want
to
join
the
foundation,
so
I
get
the
newsletter
as
a
member
right.
But
like
it's
just
something
nice
that
we
do.
You
know
what
I
mean.
I
guess,
that's
my
perspective.
D
Lissa
Dillon,
we
were
you
I
could
have
interpreted
that
two
ways,
one
which
is
yeah.
We
can
give
it
give
it
just
to
them
the
supporters,
but
it's
kind
of
a
nice
thing
as
opposed
to
promoting
it
as
a
perk
and
the
flip
side
could
be
no.
We
should
actually
just
do
it
and
make
it
available
to
everybody.
I
I
can
I.
H
Could
argue
for
either
case,
but
I
just
don't
think
that,
like
I
guess
my
perspective
is
most
people
that
want
to
be
coming
in
individual
members.
Do
it
because
they
want
to
help
the
foundation
or
the
projects
that
are
involved
and
like
the
perks
are
nice
but
like
if
I
was
looking
at
it
as
a
developer
and
I
was
like
oh
I
got
a
newsletter,
I
might
I,
might
not
care
or
I
might
actually
see
that
as
a
negative,
like
great
I
have
to
read
something
every.
E
H
H
Why
would
someone
care
to
join,
as
a
supporter
remember
well
to
like
be
part
of
it
to
help
us
out
to
give
us
some
cool
stuff
but
they're
not
doing
it
because
they
get
these
ten
things
and
they
they
care
about
all
ten
of
those
things.
So
that's
I
guess
just
try
to
keep
it
simple.
It's
my
perspective.
I.
E
Think
this
is
maybe
number
two
to
talk
to
some
folks
that
might
become
user
like
potential
members
right
or
maybe
some
folks
that
are
members
or
supporters
above
their
OSS
foundations,
to
see
to
ask
them
why
I
don't
know
if
there's
ever
been
I,
don't
know
there
may
be
existing
research
here
of
talking
to
people
about
why
they
would
want
to
become
members
or
supporters
of
the
open,
J's
foundation.
I
think
it
would
be
interesting
to
learn
the
motivators.
I
think.
The
reason
we've
been
talking
about
the
newsletter
this
way
is
having
exclusive
access.
E
Jewelry
puts
a
lot
of
work
into
it,
and
and
it's
a
great
newsletter
and
adding
a
load
or
level
of
exclusivity
with
a
really
low
price
point
is,
can
be
used
as
a
way
to
motivate
folks
to
sign
up
both
to
the
newsletter
itself,
which
right
now
is
signed
up.
You
sign
up
if
you
find
the
link,
so
both
some
exposure
for
the
newsletter
itself
and
for
the
for
the
supporter
program.
Remember
ship
programs.
D
We
definitely
talked
a
lot
about
what
might
motivate
people
to
join
in
the
past
I.
Don't
I
can't
remember
if
we
ever
went
out
and
did
an
actual
survey
or
anything
like
that,
but
I,
don't
I,
don't
personally
remember
and
I
wasn't
in
all
the
discussions,
but
I.
Don't
personally
remember
us
having
done
that
and
documented
it
anywhere
necessarily,
but
there
were
there
were
like
you
know,
what
kind
of
things
would
get
us
to
grow
to
a
large.
A
large
number
you've
got
some
of
them
like
the
digital
badge
and
stuff,
like
that,
but
I.
D
H
Have
to
be
like
things
you
only
get
as
a
member
either
like
the
newsletter
I
mean
I
personally
think
there's
for
an
open
foundation.
You
know
on
open
ideals,
so
we
don't
want
it
to
sort
of
come
across
as
like.
There's
tears
of
openness
and
closeness,
and
so
I
would
prefer
that
everyone,
that's
interested
in
jewelry's
message
to
be
able
to
get
it,
but
I
also
understand
you
want
to
have
some
stuff
that
you
know
is
tangible,
so
I
could
argue
it
either
way.
Just
I
don't
know.
H
I
would
make
a
huge
deal
out
of
like
the
newsletter
being
a
perk
on
its
own
and
like,
and
then,
if
you
try
to
make
it
bigger,
like
you
know,
you
get
more
exclusive
access
to
the
teams.
Then
it's
like
the
wait,
more
open
projects.
So
are
we
really
trying
to
like
create
a
barrier
to
like
our
openness
as
a
foundation
right
so
just
kind
of
I?
Guess
it's
just
I,
don't
know
how
to
reconcile
that,
but
that's
just
sort
of
what
goes
through
my
head
and.
A
A
A
K
A
J
A
I
don't
mind,
leaving
it
open
for
two
weeks:
it's
only
a
couple
more
days,
so
whatever
people
are
comfortable
with
the
school
with
me,
but
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
leave.
You
know
in
place.
I
know
there's
an
issue
on
this,
but
I
will
have
some
PR
open.
Hopefully,
tomorrow
for
the
board
stuff
and
and
then
we
can
kind
of
move
forward
on
those
side
pologize
for
my
delay,.
K
Yeah,
if
I
must,
if
I
may
just
add
something
new,
it
would
be
great
for
issues
like
this,
which
are
sort
of
straightforward.
Everyone
agrees,
it's
kind
of
obvious.
It's
the
right
thing
to
do.
It's
non-contentious
that
we
could
actually
not
have
to
have
like
a
complex,
time-consuming
process
around
them.
I,
don't
really
know
how
to
do
that,
but
the
fact
that
we
were
discussing
process
for
something
that's
so
obvious.
It's
kind
of
a
problem
I
feel
I
would.
J
A
D
A
A
K
So
sure
I
can
give
some
context.
This
is
a
follow-up
on
the
fact
that
moving
amp
and
electron
through
the
approval
process
had
some
last-minute
hiccups
and
some
lack
of
clarity
around
what
the
process
was
here
of
approving
an
incubated
project
and
moving
it
to
a
full
two
fully
on
board
it
to
the
foundation,
given
that
they
were
already
a
vote
for
the
Charter,
and
there
was
also
the
question
was:
was
there
another
vote
that
was
necessary?
We
sort
of
like
organized
this,
make
it
clearer.
A
Yeah
and
I
essentially
agree
with
with
Emily's
last
comment,
which
I
think
is
you
know
what
I
was
seeing
in
the
description?
That's
the
Charter
approval
is,
you
know
explicit,
but
just
having
this
final
step
of
adding
it
to
the
you
know
to
the
to
the
list.
This
is
a
good
kind
of
closure.
I
think
I
don't
want
to
make
more
process
and
all
that
other
stuff,
but
it
just
seems
to
make
sense
to
me.
I.
D
A
A
K
A
D
D
D
A
D
D
D
A
You
know
this
is
something
that
I
am
going
to
work
on
in
terms
of
clarifying
what,
with
what
these
two
seats
will
be
moving
forward.
We've
had
some
discussions
and
I've
have
notes
on
all
that
and
have
something
started.
So
I
should
have
a
PR
open
this
week.
Definitely
before
next
week's
meeting,
but
hopefully
as
soon
as
possible
since
it,
because
like
governance,
changes
and
we'll
take
a
little
bit
of
time.
K
F
F
One
of
the
things
that
we
have
seen,
certainly
on
a
Linux
Foundation
side
has
been
that
a
lot
of
projects
are
adopting
Apache
style,
clas,
Apache,
Software
Foundation
has
an
individual
CLA
and
the
corporate
CLA.
These
are
different
from
the
Apache
License,
but
these
are
fairly
broadly
used,
fairly,
well
understood
and,
most
importantly,
the
legal
counsel,
who
should
be
reviewing
anything
to
would
get
signed.
F
D
F
So
any
project
which
signed
or
which
is
using
the
existing
JSF
CLA
is
going
to
have
to
resign
their
CLA
anyhow
other
contributors
reassign.
The
reason
for
that
is
that
the
organization
that
they
signed,
the
CLA
with
no
longer
exists.
So
you
know
this
is
kind
of
a
perfect.
This
is
a
perfect
time
to
be
having
this
conversation,
because
you
know
we're
gonna
have
to
figure
this
out
anyhow,
it.
K
My
understanding
from
the
issue,
Brian,
is
also
that
the
board
is
on
board
with
this.
Sorry
sorry
was
asking
the
CPC
for
sort
of
like
additional
approval
and
or
comments
about
this
and
I
I
would
like
to
make
a
specific
comment.
K
You
know
that
the
contributions
are
going
to
be
used
and
in
the
proper
way,
etc
and
balance.
This
was
having
something
that
is
contributor,
friendly
and
frictionless
when
people
actually
want
to
contribute
to
the
project
right.
So
you
want
to
have
this
balance
between
these
two
things
and
the
existing
CLA
from
the
foundation
has
the
same
kind
of
level
of
friction
as
the
Apache
CLA
right.
K
But
my
understanding
is
from
a
legal
perspective,
offers
a
lot
less
protection,
notably,
doesn't
really
cover
issues
around
patents
that
well,
and
so
from
that
perspective
it
seems
very
valuable.
To
move
to
I
mean
not
only
is
the
principle
of
least
astonishment
you
know
better
fulfilled
was
like
an
Apache
style.
Cla
I
think
it
also
protects
the
project's
better
without
increasing
the
cost
to
actual
contributors.
So
I
think
that's
a
pretty
big
benefit
for
the
projects.
So
then
that's
the
first
thing
I
want
to
say.
K
The
second
thing
I
wanted
to
bring
up
was
the
fact
that
there
is
something
really
interesting
about
the
Apache
CLA,
which
is
that
the
individual
CLA
allows
people
to
contribute,
IP
that
is
theirs
or
that
they
have
received
authorization
to
contribute,
on
behalf
of,
for
example,
their
employer.
If
the
IP
is
actually
the
employers-
and
that
leads
a
number
of
companies
to.
F
So
that
that
was
brought
up
in
the
recent
legal
meeting
we
deferred
that
to
a
further
discussion.
The
first
question
is
getting
the
CLA
and
I
CLA
updated,
but
it
is
definitely
so
just
you
have
to
be
to
be
totally
open
and
transparent.
It's
something
which
is
under
discussion
and
they're,
fearing
varying
viewpoints
on
this,
but
yeah.
K
No
absolutely
I
understand
absolutely
my
points.
Sorry
do
I
need
me
to
speak
over.
You
I
thought
you
were
oh
yeah.
No,
my
point
was
to
sit.
K
So
my
comment
here
is:
if
the
board
is
asking
for
comment
from
the
CPC
I,
wouldn't
like
the
CPC
to
bring
that
up.
F
Yeah-
and
this
has
been
a
topic
of
conversation
that
has
they
came
up
in
the
legal
call
and
also
you
know-
Robin
has
mentioned
a
few
times
in
the
board
meetings,
just
in
general.
How
our
goal
is
to
not
throw
barriers
in
front
of
contributors
right,
so
our
goal
is
to
eliminate
barriers
so
that
we
it's
easier
for
for
contributors
to
be
able
to
participate
in
the
projects.
So
this
is
these
are
all
things
which
are
being
you
know,
they're
under
consideration,
they're
under
discussion,
I.
H
Will
say,
CCO
lays
were
really
hard
to
manage
compared
to
individual
CLS
in
particular.
Individual
C
lays
we
were
able
to
just
create
a
bot,
and
people
could
connect
up
their
github
account
and
make
that
work
versus
corporate
ones
typically
are
signed,
and
then
how
do
you
connect
the
organization
to
the
people
who
are
approved
by
that
organization
and
that's
almost
always
a
manual
process
and
a
lot
more
work,
but
I
do
definitely
agree
with
aligning
with
whatever
language
is
going
to
cause
the
least
amount
of
friction.
Just
that
I.
F
Is
definitely
step
one
as
far
as
CEO
a
management
goes
Caecilius
and
I
clas
I
mean
ultimately
it's
it's
not
a
decision
that
I
can
make
it's
not
a
decision
that
really
that
probably
any
of
us
can
make
individually
it's
something
that
you
know.
It's
all
level
of
comfort
on
the
part
of
the
legal
counsel
to
represent
the
contributors
and
the
projects
and
the
foundation
and
everything
else.
But
it
is
helpful
to
have
these
data
points
because
then
we
can
pass
them
back
in
and
say
this
is
yeah.
This
is
what
people
are
thinking.
Yeah.
H
F
F
The
tool
that
we're
using
right
now
does
allow
for
a
company
to
say
anybody
and
get
hope
who's
associated
themselves
with
the
org
is
automatically
you
know,
approved
there
they're
on
the
automatic
approved
list,
a
company
can
also
say
whoa.
You
know
we're
gonna
be
more
traditional
about
this
and
say
we
want
to
approve
individual
people
individually
and
that's
also
an
option.
But
you
know
the
idea
of
having
to
go
and
get
yourself
manually
added
to
a
list.
That's
an
option
that
the
company
can
choose,
but
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
so
from
a
tooling
perspective.
F
I
think
we
can
make
the
decision
based
solely
upon
tooling,
because
that
there
are
options
out
there
and
yeah
I
think
you
know
this
is.
This
is
certainly
getting
kind
of
coming
full
circle
back
around
to
this
issue.
This
issue
is
step
one
and
step.
One
is
basically
working
on
the
language
step.
Two
is,
then
you
know
what
does
the
actual
guidance
to
the
projects?
Look
like
I
will
say
that
if
a
ççla
is
enabled
on
the
project,
there's
nothing
in
there.
That
would
say
you
can't
sign
in
I
CLA.
F
It's
more
question
of
you
know
that
this
isn't
really
an
open,
Jas
question
at
that
point.
This
is
a.
Is
your
employer
comfortable
with
you
signing
in
ICL
a
question
which
is
between
between
you
and
your
employer,
not
between
you
and
the
project,
so
I
think
there
are
some
other
things
here
that
we
can
also.
You
know,
consider
as
we
go
forward,
but
you
know
for
now:
let's
just
kind
of
focusing
on
the
project
I.
K
Get
this
sorry
if
I
just
may
I
mean
I
think
he
agree
was
like
everything
that
Brian
just
mentioned.
I.
Think,
though,
that
if
the
request
is
what
does
the
CPC
thing
about
this
and
that
multiple
members
and
multiple
projects
of
you
know
actually
or
saying
well
CCI,
we
have
been
tough
for
us
to
handle
and
we
don't
like
it
from
like
an
operational
perspective.
I
think
this
is
the
message
that
the
CPC
should
send
back.
That's
all
I'm,
saying.
D
Time
so
I
absolutely
yeah.
This
is
like
in
it
for
this
specific
issue,
the
the
request
you
know,
I
I,
think
you
know
I
put
on
my
hat
as
as
the
community
representative,
and
it
said
from
you
know
the
principle
of
least
surprise.
We
should
at
least
go
out
to
the
projects
and
before
we
change
something
there
should
be
a
do.
You
have
any
concerns
with
us.
D
Switching
to
the
apache
license
this,
so
I
think
we
could
probably
handle
the
two
things
by
sending
out
an
email
to
all
the
projects
it
says
like
do
you
have
any
concerns?
Was
I
switching
to
the
apache
from
the
current
one
and
to
you
know,
as
a
second
step,
we're
discussing
whether
we
allow
you
know?
I
see
la
alone.
D
J
Import
one
important
aspect
of
the
previous
of
ask
the
projects
is:
is
there
a
cost
here?
Is
there
something
that
the
apache
lies?
Is
that
we
we
do
currently
get
from
a
project
point
of
view,
our
overall
from
a
contributor
point
of
view,
with
the
current
text
that
we
would
now
get
with
the
apache
based
test
thanks
all.
A
A
Otherwise,
let's,
let's
call
it
a
wrap
and
jump
into
private
session.
Sound
good.
B
A
Thank
you
too
many
people
who
are
non-members,
but
if
you
are
not
a
member,
if
you
could
drop
off
that'd
be
great
and
then
we'll
discuss
some
private
business,
we're
still
live
on
youtube.
Alright
Brian!
Can
you
do
that
for
me
and
then
who
let's
see
who's
on
the
call,
is
not
a
member
somebody's
blank
here?
Maybe
they
dropped
I,
don't
know.