►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting 2019-07-03
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
Great
great
great,
alright,
it's
getting
it
started
here.
Oh.
A
A
There
we
go
okay,
cool
sorry,
it
started
playing
and
then
I
got
that
weird
thing
happening.
Alright,
thanks
everyone
for
joining
the
open,
J's
foundations,
cross
project
council
meeting
on
July
3rd
to
get
things
started.
Let's
see
here,
I
will
drop.
The
agenda
in
the
chat
is
issue
number
243
in
the
CPC
repo.
A
A
Great
thank
you
jewelry
and
then
also,
if
I
can
request
folks
to
chip
in
on
note-taking.
That
is
greatly
appreciated.
Alright,
jumping
into
the
agenda
item
items
the
first
one
on
the
list
here
is
number
236.
This
is
email
address
for
voting
members
and
I
won't
drop
it
in
the
list
here
chat.
It
is
matéo
asks
about
a
mailing
list
for
voting
members,
only
there's
a
CPC
private
email
list
and
question
whether
we
should
include
regular
members,
and
it
was
brought
out
that
there
is
a
projects,
email
list
and
I.
A
C
Agree
that,
for
you
know
everybody
that
the
the
project's
mailing
list
should
be
sufficient
for
now
and
just
as
a
reminder,
everybody's
welcome
to
like
post
to
that,
and
if
they
have
you
know
cross-cutting
project
news
or
things
they
want
to
share.
It's
not
just
a
forum
for
me
to
spam
you
every
week
and
but
you
definitely,
we
need
a
private
thread
for
the
voting
members,
because
that
will
become
important
as
we
start
to
do.
Project
onboarding.
So.
D
It
may
be
that
there
are
people
on
the
project's
list
who
are
part
of
the
projects
and
not
necessarily
part
of
the
CPC
I,
don't
know,
but
I
heard
or
was
I
understood
that
we
kind
of
wanted
to
open
that
list
up
a
bit
more
to
more
than
the
project
members.
So.
A
E
Need
the
comment
that
you
might
want
to
like
Cove
under
the
CPC
one,
just
if
there's
things
that
CPC
wants
to
discuss
among
itself,
you
know.
Maybe
that
should
all
happen
in
an
issue
anyway,
and
you
know,
email
is
only
for
the
CPC
voting
members,
because
it's
it's
private
and
you
can't
put
it
into
a
public
issue,
so
well
I'm,
happy
to
to
wait
and
see
if
the
projects
using
the
projects
one
becomes
too
noisy
or
whatever,
but
that
was
that
was
my
thinking
behind
the
suggestion
was
just
that.
A
A
Right,
so
do
we
have
any
objection
on
using
the
project's
email
list
which,
by
the
way,
I
dropped
in
the
link
to
how
to
sign
up
on
there
if
the
open,
JSF,
org
/
g
/
projects?
If
anybody
is
not
already
on
that
email
list,
that's
how
you
can
sign
up
again.
That's
lists,
open,
JSF,
org,
slash
jeans
projects.
D
Don't
I
feel
like
you
know
it
may
be
not
a
great
place
to
post
things.
Pertaining
I
mean
okay,
so
we
have
the
JSF
projects
list.
This
was
supposed
to
be
for
the
project.
Maintainer
is
essentially,
and
you
know
it
may
be-
that
it's
not
like
a
great
place
to
reach
out
to
those
people.
If
we're
just
posting
things
in
an
issue
in
the
open,
JSF
repo
I
just
feel
like
there
should
be
a
separate,
separate
mailing
list
for
CPC
specific
private
business.
Well,.
A
There's
a
private
list
for
private
stuff.
I
guess
my
question
is
what
what
would
what
would
we
even
put
into
a
public
email
list
like
I
we
default
to
issues
so
I'm,
not
even
sure
what
would
you
know
not
qualify
for
just
opening
an
issue
and
working
through
it
there
as
opposed
to
an
email
list,
yeah.
E
G
E
I
think
I
guess
the
only
the
only
thing
I
have
seen
is
like
occasionally
by
sending
an
email
in
in
exceptional
cases
like
saying
hey,
we
could
really
use
comment
on
this
issue
or
it's
sometimes
a
more
direct
way
to
get
a
response
from
the
members
I'm
thinking
through
the
through
history.
You
know
I'm
sure,
there's
been
at
least
a
few
times
where
I've
opened
a
public
issue,
but
then
followed
that
up
with
an
email
to
the
TSC
member
saying
hey,
you
know
we
really
really
need
to
get
some
input
on
this.
E
A
A
You
know
I
prefer
to
just
less,
is
more
I
have
fewer
places
to
have
to
keep
on
top
of?
We
already
all
have
enough
to
keep
on
top
of.
E
A
E
E
A
All
right,
so
the
next
issue
is
and
I
closed
that
previous
one.
That
comment
closed,
that
the
next
issue
is
234.
This
was
also
recently
closed
by
Myles,
who
can
be
an
observer.
We
did
discuss
this
in
the
meeting
last
time,
and
my
only
question
here
I
think
is:
do
we
need
to
update
any
governance
or
whatnot
to
make
sort
of
these
things
clearer
for
next
time.
A
For
context,
who
can
be
an
observer,
you
know
in
the
CPC
we
have
already
members
regular
members
and
this
concept
of
observers.
What's
the
difference
between
it
was
an
observer
and
a
regular
member
I
believe
that
we
landed
on
the
assumption
that
observers
aren't
it
to
be
it's
meetings
and
and
volunteer,
and
things
like
that,
but
are
encouraged
to
get
involved
and
add
their
inputs,
positive
or
negative,
and
then
there's
also
an
assumption
that
observers
should
try
to
not
block
things
they
can.
E
F
F
A
Right
great,
so
you
reopen
the
issue
right
miles
and
every
other
day,
yeah.
F
A
Are
you
typing
that
into
the
minutes
now
into
the
issue?
Okay,
so
just
me
and
Joey
me
or
Jory
will
create
a
PR
to
update
language
to
make
up
for
50.
Sir
great
alright
so
well,
I'll
try
to
get
on
that
before
next
week's
meeting
and
we
can
close
up
yeah
excellently
anything
else
to
add
on
that.
Or
can
we
move
on
to
pull
requests
to
29.
A
A
Commented
on
this
issue,
a
number
of
things
I
believe
Matteo
did
as
well
I
looked
at
it
this
morning
and
saw
that
we
just
wanted
confirmation
from
Matteo
and
I
pinged
him,
and
he
gave
us
a
approval
as
well.
So
I,
don't
I
think
this
is
kind
of
work
through
the
process.
Does
anybody
have
any
more
to
add
to
this
or
any
objections
or
anything
and
to
be
clear?
This
is
moving
this
proposal
to
stage
two
which
would
be
getting
board
approval.
F
F
F
J
F
J
F
F
J
Yeah
I
just
want
to
make
sure
everyone
I
mean
it
was
clarifying
for
myself,
but
just
that
everybody
knew
that,
hopefully,
we've
set
the
process
up
that
the
CPC
gets
to
make
a
lot
of
those
decisions
right,
if
not
all
of
them,
unless
it's
necessary
or
good,
to
bring
in
other
people's
feedback.
For
this
one
I.
C
F
Also
just
dawned
on
me,
Manila
may
have
been
asking
it
at
the
staging
process,
not
the
project
progression,
I
I
added
a
different
mark
down
into
the
chat.
There's
a
staging
process
marked
down
as
well
that
outline
stating
zeroes
through
stage
three.
That's
why
I
was
asking
about
yet
Thanks
Oh
was
it
you
Jonah
I'm,
sorry
I
thought
it
was
okay
anyway,.
A
F
Doesn't
even
need,
like
collaboration,
it
can
just
be
like
an
FYI.
Do
you
see
any
issues,
because
it's
also
like
members
of
our
board
are
also
members
of
boards
of
other
foundations
and
perhaps
there's
something
that
we've
baked
in
here?
That's
a
problem
or
something
that
we've
missed,
that
we
should
have
had,
and
so
to
me,
a
lot
of
it
also
is
just
like.
We
have
a
lot
of
expertise
on
our
board
and
taking
advantage
of
that
yep.
A
F
A
E
So
that
that
one
we
actually
discussed
last
time
an
agreed
it
could
land.
However,
I
also
had
the
action
to
open
a
PR
to
clarify
the
process
for
approving
project
charters,
and
so
I
haven't
landed
it.
You
know
just
thinking.
It
might
be
worthwhile
to
wait
until
we
have
a
consensus
on
that.
That's
this
PR,
which
I'll
paste
into
the
chat
just
32:38,
could
use
a
few
more
CPC
members
chiming
in.
E
E
Yeah
I
know
I
think
that's
the
same
one.
So,
basically
just
that
is
in
the
you
know,
requirements
that
there's
clarify
this
notes.
Any
objections
there
to
more
approvals.
By
voting
CPC
members,
the
board
has
been
consulted
if
there's
substantial
changes
and
that
the
issue
has
been
open
for
at
least
14
days.
This
is
a
say.
E
A
B
G
E
Alright,
there
it
is
great
right,
so
this
basically
adds
in
a
section
into
the
governance
that
says
you
know
what
are
the
requirements
for
approving
changes
to
charters,
project
charters
and
creating
them
in
the
first
place,
any
I
was
reading
the
right.
There's
no
design
objections
are
two
more
approvals
by
splitting
CPC
members.
The
board
has
been
consulted
in
the
case.
Substantial
changes
in
the
issues
been
open
for
these
fourteen
games.
C
A
Yeah
and
the
thing
I'd
posted
everything,
calm,
calm,
it's
just
an
issue
that
there's
no
PR
up
for
that.
Yet,
but
that's
yeah!
This
is
a
good
process.
We
can
update
the
governance,
relate
the
charger
changes
and
then
land
the
TFT
one,
and
then
we
can
use
that
as
guidance
for
the
comm
com1
and
any
other
any
other
projects
one
or
need
to
update
their
charters
as
well.
A
A
E
A
A
A
A
A
So
don't
forget
to
click
to
the
other
sheet
and
add
your
time.
There
I
would
like
to
try
and
sort
this
based
on
voting
members
and
and
regular
members,
I
guess
and
try
to
work
through
what
seems
to
be
the
best
time
for
the
group
and
that
isn't
always
the
one
with
the
most
points
here.
So
I
believe
it's
someone
as
a
tool
to
help
with
this,
which
would
be
great
but
otherwise
I've
just
been
trying
to
manually
look
at
it
and
get
a
feel
for
what
seems
like
it
would
work
best.
A
A
C
A
C
A
All
right
so
yeah
we
can
kind
of
punt
this
to
next
week.
I
can
try
to
spend
some
time
looking
at
it.
If
anyone
else
wants
to
spend
some
time
looking
at
it
and-
and
you
know,
come
up
with
a
couple
of
ideas-
we
can
bring
them
to
next
week's
meeting
and
see
if
there's
another
time
and
or
day
slash
time.
That
would
be
a
good
alternating
timeslot
for
this
meeting.
A
Anyone
have
any
thing
else
to
add
to
this
issue
or
shall
we
move
on
great?
So
the
last
thing
on
the
agenda
is
issue
115,
which
is
basically
a
link
to
project
boards,
which
basically
one
is
closed
and
the
other
one.
We
have
some
lingering
items
pasted
the
project
board
and
the
chat
some
lingering
items
from
working
through
you
know
getting
the
CPC
started.
A
Shall
I
go
through
this
board,
perhaps
working
backwards
from
in
progress
and
over
to
do
and
looking
we
have
what
20
minutes
or
so
25
minutes.
We
can
check
this
out,
make
sense
great,
so
the
first
one
that
I
see
is
assigned
to
me,
and
this
is
the
create
github
template
for
project
onboarding
and
if
I'm,
not
mistaken,
jory
and
miles
have
been
looking
at
project
onboarding
as
well
and
maybe
I,
don't
know.
F
A
Three,
when
you
say
that's
something
we
can
do
before
we
go
to
stage
three.
Are
you
talking
about
the
github
templates
through
the
process
and
on
what
you
mean
by
the
github
templates
for
creating
issues
for
yeah
I?
Guess
it's
not
very
clear
your
and
the
the
title,
but
I
was
under
the
impression.
This
would
be
something
of
a
template
for
projects
to
open
to
express
interest
in
becoming
a
part
of
the
foundation.
So.
F
The
process
that
we
identified
and
just
approved
does
not
involve
making
an
open
issue.
It's
sending
an
email
and
part
of
that
proposal
that
we
approved
includes,
and
you
can
close
the
link
really
quickly.
It
has
in
it
a
application
form
great.
So
this
this
issue
is
moot
and
I
will
close
it
does
it
make
sense
to
close
it,
though,
until
this
is
landed
like
I,
think
that's.
The
reason
we
were
keeping
it
open
was
that
we
didn't
want
to
close
it
and
we've
actually
landed
the
process.
Okay,.
E
E
A
A
A
We've
talked
about
this.
Some
in
the
past
I
know
so.
Matteo
has
a
PR
that
landed,
187
moved
from
stage
two
to
three
and
Miles
commented
yesterday.
Does
this
need
to
stay
open,
good
question
so
for
context?
This
was
trying
to
figure
out
how
how
we
handle
the
travel
fund,
which
was
historically
a
nodejs
foundation
thing,
and
now
you
know
considering
it
for
open,
Jas
and
other
projects
as
we
expand
the
collab
summit
and
other
events.
E
E
F
A
A
E
J
I
think
it's
a
good
issue
to
open
or
have
like
discussion
around
because,
for
instance,
like
the
board
will
be
meeting
you
know
to
talk
through
strategy
from
the
board
level
for
the
year
and
after
strategy
is
discussed
right
budget
discussions
tend
to
happen,
and
at
that
point,
because
of
how
we've
talked
about
you
know
the
foundation
working
moving
forward.
That
would
mean
have
the
conversations
here
with
the
CPC
right
and
that's
exactly
the
type
of
thing
that
will
have
to
be
identified
if
various
projects
are
asking
for
travel
fund
budget.
J
You
know
that
would
be
an
interesting
there's,
always
like
a
mechanism
of
also
like
distribution
of
funds
and
and
how
the
it
gets
managed.
Even
if
the
projects
are
managing
the
budgets,
you
know
someone
has
to
actually
release
it
from
bank
accounts
and
how
that
gets
worked
out.
Is
you
know
the
LF
coordinating
or
the
foundation
coordinating
with
us?
So
it's
good
conversations
to
start
now.
A
Yeah
and
two
things
I
wonder
is
are:
should
we
have
issues
open
for
in
the
TSE
and
in
con
come
on
the
node
side
of
things
to
discuss
this
as
a
group
in
those
projects,
and
also
should
we
have
any
sort
of
like
collapse
on
it
or
travel
fund?
I,
guess
you
know
some
group
to
discuss
this
and
make
sure
that
we're
progressing
on
it
and
have
you
know,
consensus
and
opinions
on
how
things
should
be
done
for
when
you
know
the
board
is
working
through
that
I
think.
J
There's
a
couple
of
things
that
maybe
get
opened
up
there
with
what
you
just
mentioned
is
is
collab
summits
for
open
Jas
moving
forward
or
is
it?
Is
there
a
node
collapse
of
it
and
also
the
other
projects
and
everyone
sort
of
decides
like
who
wants
to
attend
and
from
there
we
have
a
collab
Senate
like
I,
feel,
like
that's
a
good
CPC
conversation
to
have
yeah.
J
Cuz
my
take
would
be
yes,
I
think
it
should
be
open,
Jas,
moving
forward,
a
collab
summit
and
the
projects
who
want
to
participate.
You
know
and
have
strong
representation,
and
you
know
working
things
happening
there
great.
But
then
the
travel
fund
is
an
interesting
conversation
from
there
because
well
it's
not
the
only
thing
that
the
travel
fund
is
used
for
it
is
by
far
the
most
used
right.
E
A
J
E
G
J
J
E
J
E
Not
I'm
not
arguing
that
one
way
or
the
other
is
just
I.
Don't
assume
and
just
say,
hey
were
you
you,
you
used
to
have
approval
for
this
now.
Some
other
group
of
people
doing
that
is
doing
that
for
you,
I
I,
don't
I'm
not
saying
that
people
will
just
say
won't
say.
Oh
that's
great,
like
we
better
ask
the
question.
First,
michael--ah.
F
J
E
You
know
it's
it's
it
and
it's
probably
it
probably
we
all
find,
but
it's
the
kind
of
thing
where
people
get
annoyed,
where
you
say
yes,
you'll
still
have
your
Trent
your
same
thing,
but
now
it's
actually
well
sorry,
but
actually
you
don't
actually
have
any
control
anymore.
Some
other
group
who
doesn't
necessarily
you
don't
know
who
they
are
it's
a
different
makeup.
You
don't
have
the
you
know,
it'll
be
down
to
today.
E
F
That's
not
that's
not
accurate,
like
with
the
way
that
we've
setup
the
governance
for
the
CPC.
Anyone
can
participate
in
that
and
like
Michael
I
guess
like
the
big
difference,
and
maybe
this
is
like
a
philosophical
difference
that
we're
not
agreeing
on
is
there's
nothing
saying
that
node
can't
continue
to
have
its
own
travel,
that
they
can't
ask
for
a
budget
for
the
things
that
are
outside
of
the
collaborator
summit.
I.
Think
we're
more
saying.
F
E
I'm
not
trying
I,
don't
want
to
argue
any
of
the
specifics.
I
just
they're
very
strongly
feel
we
should
consult
and
understand.
If
anybody
is
concerned,
if
nobody's
concerned
great,
we
just
think
whatever
we
think
is
right.
If,
but,
if
people
are
concerned,
we
make
sure
that
we
consult
before
we,
but.
E
They've
has
probable
fund
over
the
years
and
it's
one
of
the
substantive
things.
That's
changing.
That
could
look
if
you
basically
say
now:
okay
and
it's
no
longer
the
TCM
see,
and
then
it's
like
one
of
the
few
things
where
the
project
got
a
budget
from
the
foundation
and
actually
managed
that
budget
and
if
you're
gonna
change
that
I
think
it
very
least
some
consultation
is
warranted,
could
could.
I
I
really
like
miles,
he
brought
that
up
as
in
a
notice
is
just
another
one
of
the
projects
right,
I'm,
coming
from
a
different
project
and
I,
don't
actually
know
anything
about
how
notice
been
governed
for
last
several
years.
So
could
someone
maybe
give
me
like
a
general
overview
of
what
the
current
situation
is,
because
I've
kind
of
picked
up
like
hints
that
that,
among
the
integration
between
the
nodejs
Foundation
and
open
day
us
there
seems
to
be
some
sort
of
tension
about
specifically
about
this
travel
fund
things.
So
could
someone
outline
for
me
like?
I
B
So
I
guess
I
can
take
this
node
has
the
travel
fund.
It
is
directly
managed
in
the
admin
repo
I
played
by
the
CPC
I
read
the
column
and
the
TSC
study
slingers
of
the
PSC
and
community
committee.
You
have
the
you
know,
ability
to
approve.
As
far
as
I
know,
there's
never
been
a
rejection
for
travel.
You
know
when
the
request
has
been
specifically
for
travel
to
an
event,
or
you
know
around
this
space.
B
It's
you
know
extending
from
that.
It's
something
that
we
kind
of
worked
on
and
we
have
worked
with
to
get
budget
for
from
the
nodejs
foundation
when
it
when
we're
the
node
foundation,
and
it's
something
that
you
know
we're
moving
up
and
from
what
I
understand-
and
this
is
me
know
not
having
participated
and
open
des
foundation
extensively
over
the
past
few
weeks-
we're
moving
it
up
into
the
open,
Joyce
foundation
and
I.
My
under
stealing
here
is
that
note.
People
are
just
trying
to
make
sure
that
we
still
have
access.
E
A
C
Is
simply
that
I
don't
think
in
a
collaborative
Association
that
it's
there's
any
problem
going
and
you
know
informing
and
having
the
conversation
with
these
populations
that
calm,
calm
and
the
TSE,
but
I
want
to
point
out
that
there
are
a
good
number
of
you
all
who
are
on
those
in
those
spaces
already
from
the
node
community?
And
so
my
question
is
you
know?
Why
aren't
those
conversations
or
why
can't
those
conversations
be
happening
now?
C
A
E
J
E
I,
don't
I
don't
think
we
talked
about
the
like.
We
talked
about
projects
being
able
to
ask
requests
and
get
a
budget
so
under
I
think
completely
under
the
government's.
We
have
there's
no
reason
why
we
couldn't
continue
to
have
the
exact
same
travel
budget
that
we
had
managed
by
the
note
project
in
the
way
that
it
was
in
the
past.
E
B
It's
not,
but
I
also,
don't
feel
like
that's.
You
know
as
a
representative,
not
at
the
CPC
level,
but
as
a
member
of
the
node
product
and
one
of
the
two
top
level
committees
I,
don't
necessarily
feel
like
that's
giving
the
giving
as
much
to
the
foundation
in
terms
of
like
trust
and
willingness
to
participate,
as
perhaps
the
other
projects
have
been
and
I
think
that's
something
we
should
have
if
we
want
to
discuss
that.
I
think
that
should
be
the
backup
option,
not
the
primary
one
and.
B
I
F
That
there's
a
difference
between
going
and
informing
the
project
of
the
direction
the
CPC
is
thinking
of
going
and
inviting
them
to
the
conversation.
If
they
have
concerns
versus
going
and
asking
for
permission,
that's
the
biggest
difference
that
I
think
is
important.
I
think
we
should
definitely
be
approaching
it
as
the
former.
The
CPC
is
thinking
of
approaching
it.
F
The
most
important
is
being
very
clear
that
note
can
still
maintain
its
own
travel
fund,
just
that
the
preference,
at
least
from
what
I'm
hearing
from
the
CPC
and
in
general,
would
be
that
the
found
that
there's
a
foundation
run
budget
for
the
collaborator
summits,
because
there
isn't
a
need
to
lift
that
up
on
a
per
project.
Basis,
then
note
can
maintain
a
travel
fund
for
things
that
are
outside
of
the
collaborator
summit
and
that
it
would
be
a
different
budget.
I
E
A
So
so
two
minutes
warning
here
should
should
should
we
create
an
issue
and
calm,
calm
and
TSC
to
make
sure
that
there's
awareness
of
this
direction-
and
we
can-
you
know-
talk
about
it
again
next
week,
yeah.
A
A
E
A
A
All
right
great
does
anyone
have
anything
else,
they
want
to
add
or
any
observers
who
want
to
make
any
comments
or
anything
you
want
to
do
before
you
wrap
up
I.
C
E
Might
just
chime
in
too
with
people
can
look
at
220,
because
I
think
it's
been
open
13
days,
so
14
days
will
be
fairly
soon
in
terms
of
governor's
changes,
and
so
just
a
heads
up
to
take
a
look
there
at
the
process
for
electing
on
impact
voting
members.
If
you
want
to
have
a
look
before
that,
maybe
lands
okay,.