►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - May 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
A
All
right
great
looks
like
we
are
live.
Welcome
everyone
to
the
inaugural,
open,
Jay
s,
foundations,
cross
project
council
meeting,
it's
a
bit
of
a
mouthful.
Do
we
want
to.
We
have
13
folks
on
the
meeting
today
to
eat,
since
this
is
the
first
official
meeting.
Do
we
want
to
go
around
the
table
real
quickly
with
some
introductions?
Does
that
make
sense
all
right,
cool
I
will
kind
of
list
them
off
folks.
Here
in
my
panelist
list,
so
Brian
you
go
first
Brian
Warner,
absolutely.
B
C
Blue
and
miles
I'm
on
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
and
have
been
the
node.js
technical
steering
committee
director
on
the
board
of
directors
I've
been
involved
throughout
the
whole
bootstrap
process
and
I'm
excited
to
be
here.
I
guess
my
current
role
would
be
as
an
observer
based
on
the
current
bylaws
cool.
A
Thank
You
Rachel
Manilla,
Chowdhury
I.
E
I
You
Ben
I
said
Mitchell
yep,
you
got
it
right.
It's
at
least
it's
French
Michel
Mitchell.
You
know
right,
I've
been
from
envision
and
help
out
with
the
node.js
project
in
the
community
committee
and
other
areas.
I'm
really
excited
to
be
part
of
this.
This
project
and
currently
an
observer
looking
forward
to
membership
and
helping
out
as
we
move
along
great.
J
L
Developer
Vincent
a
smallish,
finished
consulting
company,
but
here
mainly
well
here
because
I'm
a
the
main
maintaining
for
message
format
at
the
moment,
I
like
doing
stuff
in
open
source
projects,
in
particular
with
JavaScript
localization
stuff,
which,
as
it
turns
out
it's
not
that
big,
a
feel
when
you
get
down
deep
enough
into
it.
Great
thanks.
A
O
A
Thanks
Jory
Bryan
Cardell.
A
A
Do
we
have
anything
we
want
to
mention
before
we
get
into
agenda
items,
if
not
I
will
jump
into
it.
So
first
thing
on
the
list
is
a
nominating
chair
and
director
issue.
179
I'll
paste
this
in
here
and,
let's
see
so
yeah,
we
need
to
nominate
both
the
chair
and
the
director.
There
is
the
opportunity
for
that
to
be
one
person
if
so
desired.
I
think
it
makes
sense
for
us
to
probably
have
to,
but
let's
discuss.
Does
anybody
want
to
take
the
lead
on
sharing
more
context
about
this
issue?
I.
O
A
G
Give
sort
of
an
an
overview.
My
understanding
from
you
know,
we've
done
in
the
node
project.
If
that
helps
look
okay,
so
I
mean
we
have
the
same
division
in
the
node
project
between
a
chair
and
a
direct
representative,
so
the
chair
is
responsible
for
making
sure
that
the
regular
meetings
take
place,
helping
to
build
each
and
often
gets
pulled
into
sort
of
more
meta
issues
in
terms
of
things
going
on
in
the
project.
If
there's
issues
or
conflict
or
other
things
or
often
the
foundation
might
also
reach
out
to
them.
G
G
C
I
guess
kind
of
building.
On
that
a
couple
of
the
thoughts
regarding
the
director
role.
You
have
to
wear
a
couple
different
hats,
so
you
know
all
of
us
in
this
room
right
now
are
wearing
a
combination
of
you
know
the
hats
of
us
as
individuals
and
our
individual
opinions,
the
hats
of
the
projects
that
we
represent,
the
hats
of
the
organizations
that
we
represent.
C
If
we
do
represent
organizations
and
when
we
come
and
approach
all
all
the
different
problems
day
to
day,
we
kind
of
need
to
switch
between
those
different
roles
and
those
different
views.
Now,
one
of
the
biggest
challenges
of
being
a
director,
that's
a
community
elected
director-
is
that
you're
bringing
a
couple
different
hats
to
different
situations.
So
when
you
are
going
to
the
board,
you
would
be
representing
the
cross
project
Council
and
in
turn,
then
representing
all
31
of
the
projects
within
the
foundation.
C
Then,
at
the
board,
you
will
have
to
find
that
balance
between,
representing
the
council's
viewpoint,
representing
the
thoughts
and
viewpoints
of
individual
projects,
as
well
as
representing
your
own
opinions,
and
the
board
will
always
have
things
whether
or
not
we
want
them
to
be.
That
may
be
embargoed
or
may
be
boards
sensitive
information
and
there's
all
sorts
of
different
reasons.
C
Why
that
may
come
up
from
fiscal
to
legal
to
timing
and
as
a
board
member
you're
going
to
have
access
to
a
little
bit
more
information
than
necessarily
the
other
groups
that
you're
working
with
and
you'll
be
working
with,
trying
to
figure
out
a.
How
do
you
help
bring
that
information
to
those
groups,
but
also
how
do
you
make
decisions
where
you
may
have
more
information
than
the
other
groups
in
which
you're,
representing
and
in
general?
C
It's
really
important
that
when
you're
at
the
board
and
you're,
representing
the
that,
you
are
not
just
representing
your
own
viewpoint,
but
it
will
be
necessary
to
make
decisions.
So
if
it
sounded
confusing,
it
is
because
it
is
confusing
it's
a
lot
of
work
to
find
the
balance
there
and
there
is
no
right
or
wrong
it's
something
that
you
figure
out
as
you
go
another
thing
to
keep
in
mind,
that's
important
to
think
about
as
a
board
member
is
you
have
a
few
dishy
Airy
duty
to
the
foundation
itself
being
on?
C
But
it
is.
It
is
a
full-time
role
in
the
sense
that
it
does
actively
change
your
standing
compared
to
your
peers.
So
you
know
it
creates
a
new
power
difference.
You
are
part
of
conversations
that
other
people
can't
be
a
part
of,
and
you
know
I.
This
isn't
meant
to
be
a
scare
tactic
or
to
push
people
away
from
doing
it.
C
But
as
someone
who
has
kind
of
gone
through
this
and
experienced
it,
you
know
I
think
that
it
would
not
be
fair
to
not
lay
that
out
as
well
that
you
know
it
puts
you
into
a
different
place
and
that
comes
at
some
social
cost.
But
in
my
personal
opinion
you
know,
if
you
have
the
time,
Drive
and
interest
in
working
on
those
kinds
of
problems,
it
can
be
extremely
rewarding.
C
A
A
C
G
I
think
it
provides
some
guidance
on
that.
The
voting
method,
but
not
necessarily
in
terms
of
you,
know
how
people
are
nominated
previously
I
think
we've.
We've
worked
mostly
on
at
least
in
the
in
the
node
community.
We've
mostly
worked
on
like
a
self
nomination
model
and
sort
of
with
two
different
approaches.
One
you
know
in
the
TSE:
it's
it's
been
public
in
the
calm,
calm,
it's
been
a
sort
of
an
anonymous
self
nomination
and
then
all
of
the
nominees
announced.
G
G
C
So
historically,
jury,
I,
guess
something
that's
worth
bringing
up
is.
We
did
have
a
problem
in
the
past.
We
had
done
peer
nominations
and
someone
nominated
everyone
from
the
committee
and
then
we
were
kind
of
back
to
square
one
I'm,
not
saying
that
will
happen
again,
but
I
don't
think.
We've
ever
you
know
had
an
issue
with
peer
nominations.
C
O
G
G
G
F
G
L
Go
ahead,
sorry
regarding
the
timing
here,
given
that
I
have
only
met
a
couple
of
the
people
involved
in
this.
So
far,
this
is
coming
up
soon.
I
at
least
will
be
able
to
make
it
make
it.
There
I'd
be
much
happier
to
make
a
more
informed
decision
about
what
my
opinion
here
might
be
if
it
was
happening
after
Berlin
that.
C
Would
like
to
suggest
kind
of
halfway
in
between,
in
that,
like
we
already
have
the
nominations
open,
and
perhaps
we
could
do
something
like
close
the
nominations
you
know
like
maybe
Monday,
June,
3rd
or
Wednesday
June
5th,
so
keep
them
open,
but
wait
until
after
Berlin
to
close
the
nomination
period.
Yeah
is
that
does
that
fall.
C
What
you
were
suggesting-
oh
yes
great!
So
if
we
wanted
to
just
be
like
really
clear
about
it,
I
would
say
that,
like
perhaps
we
should
close,
the
nominations.
I'd
suggest
that
we
could
close
the
nomination
and
on
the
fifth
and
have
a
decision
by
the
19th.
We
have
a
board
meeting
this
Friday.
Obviously
we're
not
gonna
have
someone
in
place
by
then
and
then
the
next
board
meeting
is
June
21st.
So
if
we
can
have
someone
nominated
by
the
19th,
they
could
participate
in
the
board
meeting
on
the
21st
of
June.
C
C
There
is
one
seat
that
only
activates
at
the
point
that
we
have
the
individual
membership
program
having
a
certain
amount
of
membership,
so
even
with
my
moving
roles,
I'll
a
still
be
at
the
board
and
participating
and
B
will
still
have
the
same
number
of
community
reps
as
we'll
have
after
the
transition.
So
I
think
personally
that
it's
reasonable
to
maybe
set
a
deadline
for
the
19th
for
both
the
node
rep
and
the
CPC
rep,
and
we
should
be
in
a
good
position.
In
my
personal
opinion,.
C
Riot
I'm
sorry
just
really
quickly:
Brian
Warner
from
the
Linux
Foundation.
If
you
could
make
a
note
for
us
to
discuss
this
at
the
board
meeting
on
Friday,
just
to
make
sure
that
this
timeline
and
onboarding
people
for
next
month's
meeting
is
okay
with
the
board,
we
can
come
back
with
a
response
from
the
board
for
next
week's
meeting.
To
confirm
that,
like
this
plan
makes
sense
from
the
board's
perspective,
absolutely.
E
A
A
C
G
G
Though
the
one,
the
one
question
we
we
haven't
answered,
which
is
you
know,
the
tc1
are
like
people
would
nominate
themselves
and
the
issue
in
the
kumkum
the
model
was,
it
was
a
sort
of
private
nomination,
so
that
would
be
the
I
think.
The
next
thing
to
confirm
which
of
those
two
we
want
to
use
in
this
case.
A
C
Brian,
would
you
be
able
to
set
up
an
alias
nomination
and
open
jeaious
foundation,
org
sure
cuz?
Then
we
could
have
an
email
alias
to
send
nominations
to
as
well
and
then
Brian
or
someone
from
the
LF
who's
kind
of
independent
can
post
those
nominations
in
the
thread.
Assuming
that
the
person
who's
been
nominated
has
been
confirmed
that
they
want
to
well.
G
That
that's
not
actually
quite
the
concern.
The
concern
was
that
in
the
comm
come
case,
the
Namit,
the
people
who
were
nominated
were
only
posted
after
nominations
were
closed
and
the
subtle
difference
in
the
dynamic
is
like
in
one
case,
you
see
who's
already
running.
In
the
other
case,
you
find
out
altogether
who's
decided
to
volunteer
so.
B
I
you
know
I
would
certainly
be
happy
to
collect
nominations,
whether
we
use
a
special,
alias
or
if
it
just
goes
to
me,
or
go
to
operations
and
open
JSF
Thorg
and,
if
you'd
like
me,
to
hold
on
to
them
and
then
prepare
them
and
post
them
all
at
once.
I
definitely
understand
what
you're
saying
there
and
I,
whichever
works
that
we
can
make
it
work
on
this
end,.
A
A
Looking
at
the
issue
here,
Myles
comments
that
we
should
have
a
documented
process,
a
way
to
ensure
project
representation
and
then
there's
a
little
bit
about
the
governance
and
I'll.
Read
this
here
that
Michael
posted
on
the
issue.
Regular
members
have
made
a
commitment
to
be
involved
in
an
ongoing
manner
and
take
on
roles
and
responsibilities,
as
outlined
below.
Regular
member
is
implied
when
membership
type
is
not
specified.
Anyone
was
born.
A
Member
of
one
of
the
projects
under
the
open,
Jas
foundation
for
at
least
three
months
may
request
to
become
a
regular
member
by
opening
a
PR
to
add
themselves
to
the
list
of
regular
members.
Regular
members
remain
for
as
long
as
they
are
active
within
the
work
of
the
CPC.
Regular
members
who
have
not
been
active
in
github
participated
in
meetings
or
other
work
of
the
CPC
for
three
months
may
be
removed
from
the
list
of
regular
members.
A
G
Think
at
this
point
it
like
I
opened
this
mostly
to
say
it's
probably
time
to
start
accepting.
You
know
people
to
nominate
themselves
miles
did
point
out
that
we
maybe
need
confirmation
that
the
the
three-month
period
has
been
mats.
I
think
I'd
suggest
that
you
know
we
we
follow
the
simplest
which
is
you
know.
Person
opens
a
PR
to
add
themselves
in.
We
then
expect
the
voting
member
from
the
project
that
they
indicate
their
primary.
You
know
they
primarily
come
from
to
confirm
that
membership.
F
O
I
was
just
gonna
say
and
with
the
caveat
to
to
what
Michael
was
saying
that
that
there
are
gonna,
be
some
people
who
would
qualify
as
regular
members,
but
they
are
from
projects
that
are
at
large
or
growth
projects
that
don't
have
a
voting
member.
So
just
you
know,
I
agree
that
there's
there
should
be
some
sort
of
like
confirmation
that
you
know
an
individual
really
is
part
of
a
project
community.
But
we
just
need
to
bear
in
mind
that
not
all
of
our
project
communities
have
voting
members
right.
G
O
G
C
I
would
say
that
kind
of
building
on
that
we
do
have.
You
know
we
have
voting
members
from
each
of
the
impact
level
projects
and
those
individuals
can
be
the
point
of
contact
for
those
projects,
and
then
we
have
you
know
I
guess
now:
it's
four
members
from
from
non
impact
level,
projects
and
yeah
I
think
it
should
fall
to
those
individuals
to
be
responsible
for
verifying
that
information,
since
they
represent
that
body
of
participants.
Mm-Hmm.
G
We
might
go
yeah,
I
agree,
that's
what
I
had
in
mind
I
think
to
make
that
easy.
We
might
go
back
and
ask
the
out
large
projects
to
provide
a
contact
that
those
people
can
reach
out
to
and
basically
say
hey.
Can
you
can
confirm
this
or
me
or
whatever?
Just
so,
then
it
said,
there's
an
easy
path
to
figure
out
how
that
happens,
but
then
having
them
do
it
do
that
as
a
you
know,
as
an
easily
recognizable
person
as
part
of
the
CPC
makes
sense,
mm-hmm.
A
J
E
G
A
good
question:
I,
don't
think
we
have
that
yet
I
think
you
know
in
in
the
the
node
project.
We
have
a
list,
you
know
the
TSC
members
and
and
the
regular
collaborators
on
the
main
readme.
We
could
do
something
similar
or
have
a
special
page.
That's
dedicated
to
that
I
think
we
just
need
to
decide
where
that's
gonna
go
I'm
drafting.
I
A
A
This
you
know
it's,
maybe
a
little
bit
more
complicated,
as
that
has
the
travel
fund
has
been
in
the
past.
Typically
I
mean
it's
been
a
part
of
the
node
foundation
and
I
believe
the
question
is:
does
that
go
up
a
level
to
the
open
justice
foundation
or
what
is
the
best
way
to
kind
of
manage
the
travel
fund
and
I?
Think
Matteo
has
a
good
comment
here
with
the
proposal.
You
wouldn't
mind
kind
of
sharing
your
thoughts,
Matteo.
F
Yes,
yes,
I
am
so
it
is.
The
current
situation.
I
have
I
think
the
vast
majority
of
our
travel
fund
of
the
travel
fund.
Money
of
nodejs
goes
into
supporting
the
collaborator
son,
okay
and
paying
for
travel
for
the
collapsible,
and
these
is
more
or
less.
This
is
not
just
this
item,
but
is
definitely
the
most
probably
valuable
use
of
that.
Okay,
and
also
it's
everybody-
is
a
lot
of
people
has
taken
the
as
leverage
these
to
go
to
the
summit.
F
F
However,
I
am
I
am
of
the
idea
that
so
I
think
there
is
a
underlining
question
is
if
we
want
to
have
the
collaborate,
the
coffee,
officialize,
the
fact
that
we
have
an
open
areas,
collaborative
summit.
We
know
yes
collaborative
Sammy,
it's
the
no
J's
process
represented
by
all
the
other
projects.
They
can
be
represented
as
well,
and
in
that
case
we
have.
F
The
car
that
the
travel
fund
for
the
summit,
it's
approved
and
managed
by
the
summit
organization,
and
whatever
this
mean
this-
is
to
the
side.
Okay.
However,
on
the
other
side,
we
don't
need
to
remove
anything
from
the
node.js
project
so
and
I
don't
think
we
should
I
am
still
representing
it,
so
I
think
some
fund.
We
need
to
be
like
there
for
them
of
the
other
activities
that
are
covered.
F
We
need
to
gather
some
stats
on
what
they
would,
what
it
is
being
used
for
and
so
on
and
so
forth
before,
making
some
some
calculate-
and
this
is
this,
may
so
the
major
reason
it
comes
from
simplicity.
So
essentially,
in
this
way
we
are,
you
know
we
are
ensuring
that
a
little
bit
of
we
are
very
showing
that
there
is
a
single
source
of
truth.
It's
a
single
small,
most,
a
single
budget
line
for
everything
and
it's
easy
to
allocate
a
managed
on
the
opposite
side.
F
That
is
the
reverse
proposal,
which
is
more
or
less
proposed
by
rich,
which
is
a
Richardson
here.
You
know
I'm
here
but
you're,
doing
great
yeah,
which
the
rich
proposal,
which
is
essentially
to
fragment
the
budget
for
every
project,
so
that
every
project
has
a
certain
amount
of
money
that
they
can
use
to
go
to.
G
G
G
C
One
thing
that
I
think
is
worth
adding
here:
you
know:
I,
don't
think
that
we
necessarily
need
to
think
too
far
ahead
of
everything.
Every
single
project
within
the
foundation
is
encouraged
to
be
like
self-sufficient,
so
I
think
to
Mateos
suggestion
that
he
had
made
if
we
want
to
continue
to
run
the
collaborator
summit
and
run
them
not
just
as
note
collaborator
summits
but
as
open,
jeaious
collaborator
summits.
C
It
makes
a
ton
of
sense
to
me
that
the
travel
cut
would
be
specifically
for
that
program
and
managed
by
that
program,
and
then,
if
individual
projects
want
to
have
a
travel
fund
for
things
that
they
want
to
do,
I
see
no
reason
why
they
can't
come
and
request
budget
from
the
CPC,
which
in
turn
then
can
become
a
budget
request
to
the
board
of
directors.
One
of
the
things
that
I
think
will
start
to
kind
of
tease.
A
Too,
about
like,
like
earmarking
travel
fund
budget
like,
for
example,
with
with
node,
you
know,
there's
a
history
there.
How
much
has
been
used
for
the
different
events
and
such
you
know,
can
we
earmark
a
similar
amount
and
then
you
know
have
have
a
pool
beyond
that?
That
is
a
little
more
opened
up.
I.
A
G
And
I
think
in
my
mind
the
important
thing
is
the
consultation
right.
Let's
you,
let's
not
change
the
model,
were
they
getting
some
consultation
from
the
project
who
has
been
using
and
managing
it
up
to
this
point,
and
you
know
I
see
we
have
a
bunch
of
representation
already
but
I
think
going
back
to
the
CPC
and
the
TSE
just
pull
the
feelings.
There
would
make
sense.
In
my
mind,
yeah.
C
O
C
Is
it
maybe
make
sense,
then,
that
a
next
step
that
we
could
do
here
would
be
someone
making
a
proposal
like
we
still
have
the
proposal
process
in
place
that
we
use
through
bootstrap?
Perhaps
we
need
a
proposal
about
the
travel
fund
and
we
can
just
have
something
more
explicit
that
we
can
reference
a
conversation.
F
F
But
that
you
know
I,
think
that's
about.
You
know
it's
about
time
that
you
know
we
have
this
experience,
we're
doing
these
experience
in
a
couple
of
weeks
in
a
week
and
we
are
going
through
that
experience
and
after
we
add
to
that
experience,
we
can
decide
if
we
want
to
do
that
again
or
not
make
sense
as.
L
A
That
is,
that's
definitely
the
the
challenge,
part
of
the
challenge
that
we're
working
through.
Maybe
somebody
could
even
outline
you
know
how
this
has
worked
in
the
past.
How
much
has
been
used
where
the
money
comes
from
and
gives
them
some?
G
Very
quick
overview
is
that
you
know
on
a
yearly
basis.
The
project
requested
a
particular
amount.
The
board
would
approve
that
amount.
We
have
it
in
mineral
that
both
the
members
from
the
TSC
and
the
calm
calm
participate
in
the
process
was
generally
to
open
a
PR
there,
adding
yourself
into
the
travel
budget.
You
know
outlining.
You
know
how
much
you
needed
for
flights,
hotels
and
so
forth,
and
then
you
needed
two
approvals
from
each
of
the
TSC
in
the
calm,
calm,
at
which
point
it
could
be
landed.
G
We
have
tres
tea,
helping
us
keep
an
eye
on.
You
know
how
the
the
funds
that
have
been
requested
match
up
with
the
funds
that
we
have
available.
It's
always
been
the
message
that
you
know.
If
we
needed
more
money
for
the
project,
we
could
go
back
to
the
board
and
ask
for
more,
but
obviously
it's
good
to
try
and
get
you
know
a
reasonable
number.
G
The
beginning
of
the
year
I
think
we
could
say
that
the
you
know,
as
Ben
mentioned,
the
bulk
of
the
travel
has
been
used
for
the
two
collaborator
summits
that
we
hold
each
year.
Although
there
it
has
also
been
drawn
upon
to
go
and
represent
note
at
some
other
conferences,
does
anybody?
Is
there
anything
I
missed
out
on
that
that.
E
Was
I
was
really
complete.
Michael
I
just
want
to
add
two
points.
The
amount
for
2018
as
far
as
I
know
was
completely
utilized.
Last
year
and
another
point
we
had
discussed
earlier
in
the
bootstrap
process.
We
had
discussed
what
it
would
look
like
if
the
travel
fund
we
to
be
accessible
to
other
projects
and
that
consideration
Emily
is
Emily,
I'm,
not
sure
if
I'm
pronouncing
it
right
and
in
cash
they
really
don't.
E
G
The
last
thing-
I
guess
I
forgot,
I
should
add,
is
rich,
did
submit
in
an
addendum
or
a
modification
to
our
governance
process,
whatever
it
is
around
the
travel
fund
to
make
an
exception
for
this
collaborator
summit
so
that
other
J
open
guest
members
could
take
advantage
of
it
as
well,
but
that
was
at
it
is
sort
of
a
one-off
to
defer.
You
know
these
kinds
of
discussions
until
later
so
Lee.
A
A
I've
been,
you
know,
cognizant
of
that,
but
I
also
think
that
these
are.
These
have
been
really
good
conversations
to
get
through
so
I
suppose
we
should
wrap
up
here
on
this
issue,
though
Matteo
will
draft
something
up
for
the
collab
summit
and
we'll
kind
of
go
from
there
unless
anyone
has
anything
else
to
add,
I
will
drop
in
the
next
issue.
Here.
This
is
issue
161,
a
draft
initial
process
for
electing
voting
voting
members
from
the
non-impact
projects.
A
G
In
the
last
meeting
we
said
we
would
defer
until
we
finished
the
bootstrap.
You
know,
I
guess
that's
happened
now.
It's
it's
probably
a
matter
of
somebody
just
needs
to
write
up
a
bunch
of
the
discussion
that
we've
had
and
put
that
into
a
proposal,
but
since
that
won't
be
for
a
year,
there's
not
necessarily
any
any
super
gence
e
to
that.
Okay.
G
A
I
also
think
that
we
don't
really
need
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
this
I
think
was
the
was
the
decision
from
the
last
meeting
that
we
would
discuss
this
in
person
looking
at
the
spreadsheet,
together
and
and
with
the
voting
members,
what
what
what
dates
work
best
collectively
a
little
bit
hard
to
pull
from
a
spreadsheet.
You
know
some
of
the
the
flexibility
of
some
of
the
dates.
So
should
we
punt
on
this
as
well
and
discuss
it
more
in
person.
A
Take
the
silence
of
a
yes
next
issue
is
115,
which
is
the
post
bootstrap
work
to
be
managed
by
the
CPC.
This
this
issue
has
been
largely
broken
out
into
two
projects:
github
projects
here
that
are
managed.
The
first
one
appears
to
be
fully
closed.
Everything
the
steps
to
bootstrap
CPC
everything
is
moved
to
the
done
column.
So,
looking
at
the
the
post
bootstrap
one
here,
we
have
a
number
of
to-do
items.
A
few
of
them
are
were
agenda
items
for
today,
with
only
five
minutes
left.
G
C
Don't
know
if
there's
an
issue
for
it,
but
I
just
opened
PR,
it's
number
182
that
has
the
first
pass
with
the
readme
there's
a
for
what
it's
worth
explicitly,
there's
a
bunch
of
stuff
in
there
that
needs
to
be
filled
in.
Please
feel
free
to
push
to
that
PR.
Do
not
think
of
it
as
something
that
I
own
everyone
can
collaborate
on
it.
A
G
That
one
would
be
a
good
one
to
get
into
progress
like
you
know,
we're
talking
about
things
like
the
code
of
conducts
I
guess
the
other
way
to
look
at
that.
Is
we
had
that
checklist
right?
So
how
do
we
start
working
through
that
checklist
for
existing
projects?
As
like?
Do
we
ask
each
of
the
voting
representatives
from
the
projects
to
take
ownership
of
saying,
okay,
we've
we've
got
we're
now
bootstrapped,
and
you
know
we
need
to
run
through
that
for
each
project.
Mm-Hmm.
A
O
I
was
just
gonna,
just
remind
everybody
for
context,
you
know
we
have
32
projects
Foundation
and
that's
that's
quite
a
quite
a
few,
so
I
think
I
would
I
would
rather
I
would
encourage
us
to
say:
let's
have
a
goal
of
getting
all
of
these
projects
on
board.
I
didn't
say
the
next.
You
know
nine
months
and
you
know
help
a
few
of
them
tackle
their
items.
You
know
at
a
time
until
we
till
we
get
all
the
way
through,
because
I
think
a
lot
of
the
project
leads,
you
know
they're
there
they
did.
O
They
specifically
are
at
large
projects,
for
example,
because
they
don't
necessarily
have
the
the
time
to
come
through
participating
at
the
CPC
level.
The
way
that
we
do
and
so
I
think
we're
gonna
be
doing
a
lot
of
support
of
them
and
helping
them
meet
the
criteria,
as
we
figure
that
out
so
I
think
I
just
would
encourage
us
to
not
not
try
and
like
eat
the
whole
elephant
by
getting
all
of
them
going
at
one
time.