►
From YouTube: 2021-08-03-CPC Meeting
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
So
welcome
to
the
openjs
cross
project
council
meeting
for
august
3rd
2021
we'll
follow
the
agenda.
That
was
tagged
in
the
issue
which
was
785
in
the
repo
before
we
get
started.
Are
there
any
announcements
that
people
would
like
to
share.
B
Just
a
quick
encouragement
for
anyone
interested
in
getting
involved
in
planning,
openjs
world
and
the
program
committee
took
a
very
brief
break
right
after
openjs
world
2021
and
we're
getting
really
excited
about
openjs
world
2022,
which
is
tentatively
planned
to
be
in
person,
and
so
one
of
the
things
we're
we're
brainstorming.
B
Now
that
we
would
love
and
put
on
and
love,
you
know
participation
with
is
like
who
should
we,
you
know,
think
about
for
keynotes,
and
what
topics
do
we
want
to
do
call
for
proposals
on
for
next
year
and,
like
all
of
that
fun
stuff?
What
fun
things
do
we
want
to
do
because
we're
going
to
be
in
person
and
we
can
play
mini
golf
together
or
something
so
please
if
you're
interested
come,
come
to
those
meetings,
we're
meeting
bi-weekly.
B
B
A
A
A
D
A
Yeah,
it's
okay
and
thanks
for
whoever's
taking
the
notes
there
that's
great.
We
can
move
over
then
to
the
next
issue,
which
is
number
782,
which
is
simplify
coc
page,
I
think
toby,
you
open
that.
E
Yes,
I
did.
This
was
following
a
pull
request
that
jorie
and
I
had
a
conversation
on,
and
I
think
I
also
opened
up
a
new
pull
request
for
that.
Essentially,
I
think
the
the
point
and
what
was
brought
up
in
the
initial
pro
request,
was
the
the
state
of
the
code
of
conduct.
Page
is
kind
of
confusing
there's
like
a
list
of
all
of
the
projects
and
some
actually
point
to
like
a
special
email
or
a
special
way
of
contacting
folks.
E
Some
don't
point
to
anything,
some
point
to
a
common
mailing
list
that
is
also
owned
by
the
cpc,
and
so
all
of
that
was
kind
of
confusing.
So
I
offered
a
simplification
and
the
newport
request
was
essentially
says
if
you're
in
project
space,
if
there's
an
email
in
that
list
of
like
six
projects,
that's
the
one
you
should
call.
If
not,
you
should
call
the
cpc.
You
should
email
the
cpc
folks
and
if
you
want
to
escalate
here's
the
escalation
and
if
it's
an
event,
here's
the
the
the
thing.
E
E
Like
this
was
already
the
case
beforehand,
except
that
was
sort
of
buried
in
more
attacks,
and
so
it
was
less
visible,
so
we're
actually
the
pr
itself
doesn't
change
that
it
just
eventually
makes
it
more
clear,
and
so
you
know
that's
a
good
out
like
that.
Clarity
is
a
good
outcome,
so
we
can
actually
talk
about
this,
but
it's
sort
of
like
orthogonal,
really.
A
A
E
E
Yeah
so
I
stand
corrected,
I
think
you're
right
and
that
wasn't
actually
explicitly
mentioned,
which
is
actually
in
that
case
even
worse,
because
it
was
kind
of
assumed,
plus
some
projects
actually
opted
into
doing
that
by
using
the
list.
The
reports,
the
report
at
a
list
that
actually
goes
to
the
cpc.
So
yes.
B
Yes,
so
there
are
a
handful
of
projects
which
have
explicitly
said
you
know
we
delegate
this
to
you
all
and
you
know
thank
you.
There
are
also
a
number
of
projects
that
particularly
older
projects
from
the
former
js
foundation
that
didn't
clearly
have
a
process
designated
and
have
not
clearly
yet
designated
that
process.
So
you
know,
in
the
absence
of
that
clarity
that
needs
to
be
provided
by
the
projects.
We
certainly
don't
want
the
community
to
not
have
a
path.
B
So
that's
that's
something
where,
in
some
cases,
the
projects
really
are
on
maintenance
mode.
They're,
not
actually,
you
know
active,
so
we
could
offer
to
the
community
and
to
that
maintainer
like
hey
this
line,
just
in
case
is
backup
or
we
could
try
and
go
more
aggressively,
get
them
to
update
the
space
on
their
own
repositories,
with
with
our
reporting
information
or
with
one
that
they
we
help
them
create.
B
But
I
think
it
is
fair
for
our
community
to
implicitly
assume
that
if
they
can't
find
information
about
reporting
an
incident
on
a
project
that
the
cpc
is
available
to
help
them
find
that
that
path.
A
I
think
even
but
what
you
said
find
that
path
is,
is
subtly
different
from
we've:
we've
taken
ownership
for
anybody
who
doesn't
have
one
we've
taken
us
ownership,
I'm
not
saying
that.
That's
actually
a
bad
thing,
I'm
mostly
saying
it's
not
listed
like
in
the
cpc
charter,
and
so,
if
we
think
that's
a
good
idea,
we
should
add
it
to
the
cpc
charter
and
make
it
explicit
that
you
know
projects
today.
I
think
it's
kind
of
like
it's
clear
that
if
it's
a
project
under
the
openjs
foundation
space,
the
cpc
will
do
it.
A
What's
not
clear
is
that
the
openjs
and
cp,
or
the
cpc
in
particular,
is
a
backstop
for
anybody
who
doesn't
do
it,
which
you
know
could
be
just
another
line
that
says
in
the
charter
that
says
for
any
project
that
doesn't
have
their
own
reporting
process.
The
cpc
is
responsible
for
managing
that
process.
D
That
makes
sense,
and
maybe
we
could
maybe
we
could
add
that,
like
as
a
next
step,
unless
anyone
thinks
it's
a
bad
idea,
I
have
to
jump
in
a
minute,
but
I'll
follow
up
in
the
notes.
F
I
think
there's
a
difference
between
is
responsible
for
that
process,
and
it
is,
is
that
process
like
reporting
to
the
cpc
or
whatever,
wherever
it
goes
or
wherever
reported
lists
goes
like
being
responsible
for
that
process
means
defining
that
process
for
each
project,
which,
I
don't
think
is
what
we
want.
I
think
it
is
we
are
or
whoever
again
whoever's
on
that
list
is
the
ones
who
will
be
dealing
with
it.
Not
we're
going
to
define
a
process
for
this
project
and
like
they'll,
have
to
like
that.
F
That
is
was
something
that
I
don't
think
we
want
to
do
in
terms
of
no
in
in
terms
of
like
telling
projects.
This
is
how
you
you
are
moderated,
and
also
just
in
terms
of
like
the
work.
I
don't
think
either.
Those
are
something
we
want.
G
A
B
That
is
true,
so
we
do
have
a
little
bit
of
a
catch-22
where
there
may
be
projects
that
you
know:
don't
they
have
it.
They've
adopted
it
in
the
sense
that
it's
like
attached
to
their
repositories
in
some
way,
but
technically
aren't
enforcing
it
because
they
don't
have
that
process
identified,
and
that
would
be
something
that
we
should
be
concerned
about
as
a
cross
community.
E
Yeah,
oh
sorry,
you.
B
E
Yeah,
just
to
clarify
what
I
was
trying
to
do
here
is.
I
can't
imagine
that
we
would
have
a
project
with
a
code
was
a
code
of
conduct,
violation
problem
that
would
come
to
the
cpc
and
we
would
just
be
like
well
we're
sorry.
The
project
hasn't
created
anything
right
because,
obviously
like
the
next
step
for
them
would
be
well.
I'm
then
going
to
just
es
escalate
this
to
the
cpc
which
I'm
you
know.
E
That
is
not
really
useful
and
so
like
I,
I
think
that,
from
the
perspective
of
talking
to
the
projects,
we
should
probably
be
talking
to
them
and
telling
them
hey.
Listen,
we
don't
have
anything
for
you.
Are
you,
okay?
That
is
like
your
plan
for
this
to
default,
to
in
the
cpc,
but
from
the
perspective
of
someone
actually
reporting
an
issue,
it
would
not
it's
like.
They
should
not
be
sort
of
hurt
by
the
fact
that
we
don't
have
this
organized
the
way.
It
should
be
great
that
was
sort
of
like.
G
A
A
A
You
know
it
should
be
clear
like
we're
not
telling
you
what
to
do,
but
you
got
to
do
something
and
if
you
don't
do
something,
then
we
take
responsibility,
and
that
seems
like
a
clear
and
and
like
toby's
saying
it's
most
likely
going
to
effectively
be
the
same
anyway,
because
we,
you
know,
as
a
group
the
buckstop
is,
is
probably
going
to
stop
here
anyway.
So
let's
make
that
up
front
and
make
it
clearer,
as
opposed
to
people
saying
well,
do
I
or
don't
I
or
whatever
right.
E
And,
and
just
like
to
quickly
like
add
to
this,
like
what
drove
me
to
actually
like
suggest
those
changes
is,
I
was
like
you
know
in
this
list.
We
now
had
folks
that
had
their
own
sys,
you
know
like,
for
example,
like
hospital
run,
had
their
own
like
email,
which
was
hello,
hospital,
run.I,
o
and
then
maca
had
report
at
lists.opengsf.org,
which
was
also
the
default
sort
of
like
the
cpc
one
right,
and
so
that's
like.
So
what
does
it
mean
about,
say?
Nvm
that
doesn't
have
anything.
E
You
know
it's
like
it's
creating
this
really
confusing
thing
for
people
actually
looking
at
this
page-
and
I
don't
think
that's
the
purpose
of
that
page.
So
I
think
we
agree
that
this
is
a
direction
in
which
we
want
to
go
except
we
want
to
make
that
more
clear
on
the
charter
itself,
and
we
also
want
to
do
some
outreach
to
the
projects
that
haven't
made
a
decision.
G
A
D
C
E
And
just
was
like
a
tiny
asterisk
here.
That
is,
some
projects
have
actually
opted
into.
Having
the
cpc
do
this
right
and
some
projects
haven't
done
anything,
and
so
you
know
when
we
do
the
outreach.
We
probably
want
to
be
careful
about
this,
because
it's
kind
of
weird,
if
we
you
know,
go
to
like
maca
or
I
think
it
was
eslint,
actually
had
a
pull
request.
E
E
Being
a
bit
worried
of
that,
that
would
and
then
lastly,
actually
like
project
like
apium,
says
email
maintainers
in
in
the
you
know
in
reporting,
which
I
think
is
kind
of
like
a
little,
not
really
helpful.
E
E
I
I
get
your
point,
but
I
think,
like
the
request,
should
be
something
along
the
lines
of
provide
a
simple
direct
way
for
people
to
report
code
of
conduct
to
the
project
or
have
the
cpc
do
that,
but
it
feels
as
if,
like
you
know,
you're
essentially
saying
something
like
we
want
to
be
as
a
project
we
want
to
be
able
to
handle
this,
but
the
only
way
to
actually
open
a
code
of
conduct
issue
is
to
stand
on
your
head
outside.
E
You
know
this
address
then,
like
I
think,
there's
a
point
in
which
we
have
to
you
know
be
in
the
conversation
and
say:
well,
that's
not
enough
or
that's
not
accepted.
That's
not
an
acceptable
reporting
system.
A
I
just
like,
I
don't
think
sorry,
you
know
I'm
not
arguing
against,
but
if
we
want
to
impose
requirements
we
should
probably
write
those
down
somewhere
and
say
you
know.
If
you
want
to
have
your
own
here's
our
requirements
on
them
or
or
like
you
know,
it's
perfectly
fair
to
give
them
feedback
as
well.
But
it's
a
is
it
a
requirement
versus
some
feedback.
Is.
F
F
Like
I,
I
have
personally
criticized
other
projects
in
the
javascript
ecosystem
in
the
past
for
setting
the
one
maintainer
who
has
been
problematic,
as
the
csc
report
is
like
email
me.
If
you
have
a
problem,
but
if
the
problems
with
that
person
then
you're
kind
of
like
you,
you
don't
get
the
solution,
so
I
I
agree
with
that.
Like
I
don't
think
individuals
should
ever
be
a
coc
report.
It
needs
to
be
an
alias
or
a
group.
E
Oh
you're,
adding
additional
requirements,
so
I
mean.
G
A
A
E
So
what
would
be
like?
How
do
we
split
this
work
up
just
to
be
clear
like
do
we?
Are
we,
okay
with
that
pull
requires
that
you
want.
Do
we
want
to
hold
on
to
that
pull
request
until
we
clarify
the
rest
of
the
stuff?
What
do
we
do.
A
A
A
You
know
that
that
technically
maybe
you
know
this
should
technically
wait
for
that,
maybe
the
rest
of
the
stuff.
I
don't
think
so.
It's
just
like.
If
we're
actually
saying
hey,
yeah
we're
responsible
for
it,
then
it's
probably
should
be
in
the
charter,
but
I'm
not
I
mean
I'm
not.
I
don't
feel
super
strongly
whether
we
need
to
wait
or
not
on
that,
because
we
could
always
take
it
out.
I
guess
if
it
turned
out
not
to
or
be
a
challenge
which
I
doubt.
E
All
right
so
concretely,
working
with
merging
this
and
doing
the
charter
work
in
a
different
pull
request,
yeah
and
we're.
A
A
A
E
Works
for
me,
if
that's
okay
was
the
board
and
they
won't
be
lost
in
the
different.
How
broad
the
pull
request
is.
E
That
specific
thing,
if
we
want
to
have
a
specific
policy
about
what
should
be
required,
does
that
need
to
be
board,
approved
and
then
the
charter,
or
is
that
something
that
needs
to
be
somewhere
else?
And
if
so,
where
do
we
open
an
issue
for
that?
Sorry,
for
being
very
specific.
A
A
If
the
not
to
do
y
includes
telling
projects
how
to
run
things,
we
might
have
to
tweak
that
and
that
might
require
charter
change,
but
I
don't
know
up
ahead
whether
that
separate
one,
I
think
you
should.
We
should
treat
that
as
a
separate
discussion
right
like
get
this
landed.
This
clarity
sounds
is
good,
regardless
of
that,
and
then
it's.
C
A
Sounds
good,
so
I
had
three
things:
next
steps
pr
into
charter
add
to
the
existing
pr
outreach
robin
volunteered
to
clarify
what
will
happen
if
they
don't
opt
in
with
the
projects
and
then
the
third.
A
A
E
A
A
A
Okay,
well,
I
think
that
I
think
we
have
some
good
next
steps
there.
So
I'd
suggest
we
move
on
to
the
next
issues.
Okay
clarify
whether
it's
requirement
to
use
either
cla
or
dco
at
opengs
foundation.
A
E
On
my
recollection
is
folks
regret
that
it
isn't
more
clear
in
the
ip
policy
that
you
can
pick
one
or
the
other,
but
have
to
have
one
or
the
other,
and
that
the
best
that
the
cpc
could
provide
in
that
area
was
essentially
to
have
the
clarify
this
in
the
ip
policy
guidance
which
it
already
does,
and
hence
the
only
open
question
is.
Do
we
feel
like
we
want
to
have
a
modification
of
the
ip
policy
to
clarify
that
point,
which
seems
like
a
lot
of
work
for
a
minor
clarification.
E
Maybe
we
should
bundle
like
have
a
list
somewhere
of
ip
clarifications,
that
we
would
like
to
see
in
the
ip
policy
that
one
you
know
when
we
have
a
lot
when
there's
an
other
change,
that's
happening
anyway.
We
could
add
in
that
policy.
I
think
that
would
be
useful,
but
I
I
can't
imagine
that
we
would
bring
in,
like
all
of
the
folks
that
need
to
be
involved
in
an
ip
policy
change
just
for
clarifying
that
point
which
is
sort
of
you.
E
If
you
read
in
between
the
lines
in
the
ip
policy,
it's
kind
of
clear
I
mean
it
says
like
if
you
want
to
use
a
cla,
you
have
to
get
board
approval
and
then,
like
the
board,
has
approved
like
a
cla
already
so
like
there's
a
pre
like
all
of
this
is
kind
of
complicated
right
but
like
this
is
only
complicated
when
a
new
project
comes
in
the
foundation
and
has
to
to
walk
this,
and
they
should
be
relying
on
the
the
ip
policy
guidance
stock
for
this
anyway,
so
it
I
mean
I
hate
to
just
close
this
and
say
we're
not
going
to
do
the
work.
E
E
A
E
Does
anyone
know
it
to
me?
It
feels
like
that
needs
to
go
through
board
approval
and
board.
Members
will
need
to
have
broad
conversations
with
their
attorney
to
understand
what
they
can
change
and
what
they
can't
like.
It
feels
like
complicated.
A
A
A
E
E
A
Just
thinking
of
a
documentary
who's
guaranteed
to
be
in
the
loop
on
the
next,
you
know
the
next
round
of
updating
that.
E
Of
the
problem
is,
like
you
know,
like
the
number
of
people,
this
information
has
traveled
to
once
it
gets
to
like
lawyers
of
like
board
members,
it's
like
you're,
talking
about
like
four
or
five
or
six
people
in
between
and
the
the
risk
of
this
being
misunderstood,
understood
differently
or
dismissed
as
like
a
request
for
like
a
substantial
change
when
it's
not
are
kind
of
large.
So
that's
the
other
aspect
that
I
find
kind
of
like
you
know
that
bothers.
E
A
E
Well,
why
don't
we
just
label
this
as
ip
policy
change
and
just
park
it,
and
always
like
a
special.
E
A
E
I
I
literally
cannot
imagine
someone
being
okay
to
organize
a
meeting
with
that
many
people
for
a
clarification
of
that
nature
like
I
would
not
personally
be
willing
to
burn
social
capital
for
something
like
this.
So
I
really
doubt
anyone.
E
Be
willing
to
do
that
because
I'm
happy
to
burn
social
capital
on
a
regular
basis
for
stuff
like
this.
So
you
know.
G
A
A
Okay,
let's
move
on
to
the
next
one.
A
Well:
okay,
cpc
chairman
election.
It
sounds
like
from
jury
who
had
to
drop
off
that
there
weren't
any
other
candidates
other
than
joe.
So
I
think
we
can
say
welcome
back
joe
congratulations
right.
E
E
E
A
A
Okay,
so
I
took
that
as
the
minutes
reminder
for
long-term
events.
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
new
on
this.
A
The
next
one
is
create
proposals
for
the
community
fund
number
756..
I
think
robin
you
had
an
action
to
go
off
and
create
a
proposal.
G
G
I
think
we
had
agreed
in
our
last
meeting
just
from
a
process
perspective.
Let
me
pull
my
notes
that
we
would
have
a
small
committee
to
review.
That's
even
the
applications
coming
in
and
then,
but
the
cpc
private
would
do
a
vote
on
the
recipients.
But
I
guess
the
question
is,
as
I'm
finishing
up
this
like
this,
you
know
the
scholarship
application
document
and
the
preamble.
G
E
A
Okay,
the
last
the
last
one,
although
there
was
another
one
I
added
somewhere-
maybe
I
didn't
add
it
too
late,
but
anyway
provide
implementation
guidance
for
dco
cla.
G
No,
he
has
been
yeah
in
communication
with
the
maintainer,
give
us
the
update
we
gave
a
couple
weeks
ago.
They
don't
have
the
bandwidth
right
now
and
they
have
an
issue
open
to
try
to
find
support
on
their
project
end.
So
no.
A
A
Right
so
the
last
one
is
just
to
kick
off
of
the
election
process
for
the
secondary
cpc
director
based
on
the
timelines
in
the
charter.
It's
now
time,
so
we
need
to
kick
that
vote
off.
I
think
I
asked
in
the
issue,
if
jory
and
joe
sort
of
run
that-
and
I
think
they
said-
let's
kick
it
off
in
this
meeting
and
go
from
there.
A
Well,
I
think
they'll
they
they
don't
need
to
be.
A
E
A
G
A
G
G
E
G
Thanks
rachel,
I
we
had
our
initial
meeting
we're
trying
to
reconvene
and
trying
to
find
time
where
folks,
from
other
time
zones
can
join,
because
right
now,
the
holding
time
that
we
can
meet
either
bi-weekly
or
even
once
a
month
is
alternates
from
the
node.js
tooling
working
group.
That's
correct,
michael,
so
that
was
sort
of
an
easy
calendar
hold.
But
we
need
to
reach
folks
from
other
time
zones
and
perhaps
some
security
experts
as
well
to
see
if
they
can,
if
they
can
suggest
other
times.
A
A
G
True
and
attendance
has
been
pretty
low
in
the
summer
just
in
the
last
two
working
sessions,
so
that
may
be
an
issue
as
well.
Let's
skip
it.
I'm.