►
From YouTube: 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).
B
Wonderful,
thank
you
so
much
rachel
welcome
everyone
to
our
cpc
meeting.
Today
is
tuesday
november
the
3rd
and
we're
gathered
around
a
group
of
folks
representing
lots
of
different
projects
within
the
openjs
foundation
community.
B
A
B
B
Great
so
get
those
in
and
join
for
that.
That
sounds
like
a
fun
fun
fun
time
I
found
my
dojo
toolkit
t-shirt
the
other
day
that
was
cool
one
announcement.
We
just
discussed
we're
going
to
go
ahead
and
cancel
today's
regularly
scheduled
standards
meeting,
and
so
we're
going
to
open
that
we're
going
to
comment
on
the
issue
there.
B
We
just
have
one
item,
we're
looking
for
a
larger
block
of
time
and
today's
not
likely
to
have
a
lot
of
attendance,
so
we're
gonna
go
ahead
and
preemptively
cancel
that
other
announcements
or
news.
B
Okie
dokie
hearing
none
I'll
just
also
add
we're
going
to
close
15
minutes
early
today
for
a
private
session
to
share
some
updates
about
an
event
next
year,
so
we
will
close
a
little
early,
but
we
will
now
dive
right
on
in
to
today's
agenda.
We
start
with
number
658,
which
is
develop
a
growth
plan
template
this
is
one
that
toby
had
opened.
B
B
B
I'm
just
gonna:
suddenly
I
just
was
not
logged
into
github,
so
I
couldn't
comment
or
see
any
of
the
recent
comments.
Okay,
I
don't
see
anything
new
on
this
and
this
is
toby,
so
we
will
move
on
since
that
doesn't
have.
B
Any
updates
so
no
update,
oh,
and
let
me
remind
everyone
here
to
to
add
yourself
to
the
list
of
attendees
in
that
and
that
note
stock.
I
shared,
if
you
don't
mind,
all
right
number
650,
which
is
a
proposal
to
remove
the
growth
stage.
B
And
okay
see
I
was
mentioned
in
this
comment
in
the
cpc
meeting
today.
We
thought
it
would
be
good
to
ask
growth
projects
what
they
thought
about,
having
growth
stage
removed
and
what
would
be
the
best
way
of
going
about
that.
So
it
sounds
like
I
was
pinned
on
this
to
reach
out
to
the
growth
stage
maintainers
to
assess
their
feelings.
Could
any
somebody
who
was
here
last
week,
maybe
just
give
me
a
quick
recap
of
that
convo.
C
Very
briefly,
it's
just,
as
you
said
before
we
go
and
make
decisions
about
the
growth
strange
stage.
We
should,
at
the
very
least
ping
the
the
groups
that
are
in
growth
at
the
moment
about
their
thoughts
on
the
matter.
B
B
Working
groups
and
as
I
click
that
open
can
I
ask
somebody
to
promote
mary
and
for
khan.
I
I've
lost
my
promote
privileges.
Somehow.
Thank
you
very
much
cool.
B
B
Recapping
from
joe
consensus
is
to
use
cpc
meeting
time
beyond
agenda
to
do
some
working
session
work.
Another
idea
is
to
create
working
session
meeting
template
that
would
provide
info
on
the
following
and
then
the
action
item
was
toby
to
start
a
pr
around
the
issue
template
he
does
have
a
linked
pull
request.
B
Let's
see
if
it's
had
enough
approvals,
it's
been
open
for
14
days
and
had
a
few
lgtms.
So,
theoretically
we
could.
We
could
merge
this
in
and
say
done.
It
doesn't
have
a
lot
of
approvals
on
the
pr,
but
that
may
also
be
just
because
it
was
nice
and
normal
and
miles
is
here
too.
B
We
want
to
promote
miles
any
issues,
maybe
just
merging
this,
because
it's
been
open
for
14
days
and
has
our
plus.
B
B
I
don't
think
so
either
yeah
all
right.
I
will
do
that
and
then
I
think
that
will
close.
B
And
then
that,
may
let
me
update
number
649
and
joe
is
here.
B
Cool
so
joe
we
are
on,
I
don't
know
if
you
wanted
to
jump
back
in
and
take
over,
but
we're
on
six
four
nine
we
just
closed
or
just
merged
in
the
pr,
with
the
work
in
pro
progress,
ad
hoc
template
and
now
we're
going
to-
and
I'm
just
going
to
comment
that
this,
since
that's
close
since
that
that
was
merged
and
and
closed,
should
number
649
be
closed
or
is
there
anything
else
we
think
needs
to
happen
to
close
649?
This
is
the
one
about
ad
hoc
working
groups.
B
Like
chris
hiller's
comment,
yes,
good,
perfect,
I
think,
because
there's
been
more
activity
in
the
week
or
two
since
I've
been
out
and
and
then
I
know
we
wanted
to
reach
back
out
to
the
growth
maintain
growth
stage
maintainers,
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
any
action
we
want
to
take
further
on
these
on
on
these
growth
plan
related
issues
until
we
have
more
weigh-in
from
those
groups
or.
C
Six,
four:
seven:
I
think
that
should
have
been
already.
I
think
we
have
a
decision
on
having
on
moving
it
to
the
project.
State
history
go,
but
is
there
a
reason?
Anyone
knows
why
it's
still
around.
B
E
C
B
B
Looks
like
there
is
some
changes
requested
from
emily
and
that's
been
pretty
recent.
B
And
I
don't
see
that
michael's
had
time
over
the
weekend,
obviously
to
to
respond
to
that,
but
it
looks
like
actually
once
emily's
comments
are
addressed.
This
one
could
probably
land
is
that
what
y'all.
C
E
Yeah-
and
I
think
oh
I
see
so-
is
that
it
says
it's
outdated
in
my
view
here.
So
maybe
that's
already
addressed.
Let
me
let
me
look
at
the
changes
here.
E
Yeah,
I
don't-
I
don't
see
bootstrap
in
here
anymore,
so
I
think
this
is
kind
of
ready
to
go.
The
only
question
I
have
is
that
we
were
looking
at
restructuring
the
directories
in
that
you
know
in
that
directory,
but
I
think
that
that
could
be
a
follow-on
issue.
You
know
we
could
merge
this
and
then
just
create
a
quick
issue
to
say
you
know,
align
directory
structure
and
readmes
to
fit
with
the
new
updates
of
the
proposal
process.
E
So
I
think,
if
I'm
not
mistaken
emily,
if
you
could,
I
guess
you're
not
probably
able
to
do
this,
but
I
just
did.
Oh,
you
did
great.
E
C
The
remaining
question
that
I
had
left
is
that
as
a
sort
of
dog
fooding
exercise,
should
this
proposal
follow
its
own
proposal.
E
It
at
least
it's
a
nice
idea,
so
if
there
is,
if
there
are
no
objections,
I
can
merge
this
and
then
open
a
pr
to
to
you
know
not
a
pr
but
a
issue
to
align
the
directory
structure
and
the
readmes
to
you
know
be
aligned
with
these
changes.
E
E
B
B
B
C
That's
I
think,
effectively
blocking,
on
the
whole
thing
we're
doing
with
growth.
B
B
Yeah
I
see
this,
we
had
some
meeting
notes
from
some
of
the
ad
hoc
calls.
So
so
should
we
add,
like
a
blocked
label
on,
do
we
have
a
blocked
label?
We
do,
should
we
add
a
blocked
label
on
this.
E
C
B
Well,
so
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
felt
urgency,
or
some
amount
of
urgency
on
this,
was
to
help
support
growth
projects
that
are
trying
to
reach
some
goals
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
And
so
I
think
it
makes
sense
that
the
issue
on
how
we
review
those
goals
could
really
be
dependent
upon
like
what
we're
doing
with
the
growth
stage.
If
we
fundamentally
rethink
that
as
a
stage
or
that
as
a
process,
then.
B
C
What
our
was
it
shelter
or
governance
doc
says
that
we
ought
to
be
doing,
and
hence
this
issue.
On
the
other
hand,
a
resolution
for
this
issue
might
be
that
we
end
up
changing
the
charter
or
governance
that
says
that
we
ought
to
be
doing
this
to
say
something
else.
So
who
knows
what
we're
really
doing
here.
C
B
Well,
but
I
think
it's
still
like
worth
asking
you
know
like
under
what
scenarios
we
may
want
to
review
at
large
projects
or
impact
projects,
or
you
know,
I
doubt
we
would
review
emeritus
projects
ever
but
but
like
that's,
that's
one
thing.
E
Yeah,
I
feel
like
a
review
process
for
all
aspects
of
the
work
that
we're
doing
here,
or
maybe
all
is,
is
too
broad
but
the
different
stages
of
projects
and,
additionally,
the
cpc
and
the
foundation.
E
But
I
I
wonder
if
you
know
we
can
kind
of
make
this
not
an
arduous
process
but
design
some
simple
questions
that
we
would
send
to
projects
and
and
how
we
would
evaluate
the
work
of
the
cpc
in
the
foundation
and-
and
you
know
just
make
that
an
annual
thing
we
send
it
out.
People
respond,
you
know,
what's
our
what's
our
net
promoter
score
and
go
from
there,
sorry.
B
I
got
my
12-year
twitter
anniversary
thing
today
and
then
I
was
thinking
about
that
kind
of
stuff.
That's
old
school
anyway,
so
maybe
maybe
they
are
separate,
and
I
agree
joe,
that
I
think
this
needs
to
be
for
most
projects,
especially
those
that
aren't
really
contemplating
a
major
change
or
a
major
need,
or
something
should
be.
Super
lightweight
and
easy
and
like
a
questionnaire
like
is
probably
sufficient,
but.
B
It
should
be
useful
right
and
not
just
here's
a
busy
work
survey
for
you
to
do
so.
Maybe
we
do
keep
this
so
I
I
would
be
delighted
to
volunteer
to
like
tackle
this
as
a
hopefully
separate
kind
of
decomposed
part
of
the
growth
plan
problem.
E
So
my
question
as
it
relates
to
this
particular
issue
is
number
one.
Should
this
issue
be
essentially
updated
to
clarify
that
it
is
related
to
growth
projects,
and
then
we
create
an
issue,
for
you
know:
develop
annual
review
process
for
non-growth
projects,
develop
annual
review
process
for
the
cpc,
develop
annual
review
process
for
the
foundation
kind
of
thing.
C
B
Yeah
be
kind
of
harder
to
separate
out
this.
Just
yeah
just
seem.
B
I
I
I
think
I
agree
with
you
joe.
We
could
just
make
this
one
about
specifically
what
you
know
a
process.
Maybe
review
process
might
be
needed
for
growth,
and
that
is
certainly
blocked,
as
emily
says,
on
what
the
heck
we're
doing,
and
then
we
can
have
a
different
issue
for
the
the
broader.
E
It
could
even
be
that
that
is
just
one
other
issue
and
not
three.
You
know,
as
I
described
it,
but
you
know
either
way
there
I'm
curious
what
what
needs
to
happen
for
this
issue.
To
close,
I
I
so
we're
looking
at
eliminating
the
growth
status.
Sorry,
the
growth
you
know,
project
state
altogether.
So
if
we
move
forward
on
that,
then
is
this
done
and
is,
is
reviewing
growth
actually
just
part
of
a
growth
plan,
as
opposed
to
an
annual
review
process.
C
E
Yeah-
and
I
I
don't
know,
if
that's
and
I'm
kind
of
thinking
out
loud
here
a
little
bit,
but
I
don't
know
if
that's
like
sort
of
this
issue,
as
as
as
it
relates
to
an
annual
process,
and
I
think
it
just
becomes
more
like
what
is
it,
how
do
we,
how
does
a
growth?
How
is
a
growth
plan
implemented-
and
you
know,
reviewed
on
some
sort
of
regular
basis,
as
maybe
a
more
specific
issue,
as
it
relates
to
the
work
here.
D
B
E
B
B
B
On
the
other
growth
related
issues
and
make
a
comment
in
the
issues
as
such:
okay
cool
great
great
I'm
updating
those.
Now
let
me
just
okay
cool.
B
E
Let
me
ask
real
quickly:
should
I
create
an
issue
for
review
process
for
all
other
things
or
yes,.
E
And
do
people
think
that
there
should
be
an
issue,
for
you
know,
non-gross
projects,
an
issue
for
the
cpc
and
an
issue
for
the
foundation,
or
should
they
be
grouped
or
what
are
people's
thoughts
just
quickly,
don't
make
a
bike
shed.
C
E
It
as
one
issue,
and
we
could
we
can
hash
it
out
there.
E
Sure
yeah,
that
makes
sense
if,
if
we
want
to
do
that.
B
Okay,
let's
take
sinish
minutes
and
then
we'll
close
for
a
private
session.
So
I
will
be
the
time
keeper
and
make
sure
we
are
done
with
this
combo
by
12
48
eastern.
B
B
C
B
B
Do
we
want
to
run
those
on
the
same
cycle
all
at
once,
so
we're
just
getting
it
done?
Do
we
want
to
separate
it.
C
E
B
An
all-in-one
would
be
nice.
The
question
is
to,
in
my
mind,
is
just
like:
what
do
we
want
to
know,
and
I
is:
is
it
similar
enough?
You
know
to
to
be
combinable,
you
know,
because
I'm
thinking
about.
B
What
do
we
want
to
know
from
like
an
at-large
project
and
as
part
of
their
review
process?
Well,
I
would
say
you
know
just
spitballing
I
want
to
know
like.
Like
basically
was
your
did
your
rate
of
contributions
change
this
year,
like
rate
of
development
activity,
did
it
increase,
decrease
stay
the
same?
B
C
C
And
I
think
sort
of
open-ended
questions
like
that
with
maybe,
as
you
mentioned,
are
you
planning
anything
big
or
are
you
planning
on
winding
anything
down
and
then
maybe
an
option
that
no
yes
and
then
a
free
text
to
to
explain
more
on
what
what's
happening
then
on
both
of
those.
B
Yeah,
but
I
think
those
are
different
questions
than
we
might
want
to
send
out
to
someone-
or
maybe
it's
all
part
of
the
same
questionnaire,
because
it's
like
here
are
some
review
questions
for
your
project
like
so
that
you're
giving
us
some
information
about
support,
or
you
know
whatever
and
then
like
in
the
same
questionnaire.
B
B
It
certainly
would
be
less
annoying
possible
to
I
don't
know
I
sometimes
I
get
annoyed
by
the
number
of
surveys
I
get
so
maybe
it
would
be
less
annoying
to
send
just
one
survey
that
encapsulates
two
things
like
it's
like
here's,
here's
stuff
about
your
project
and
here's
stuff
about
the
cpc,
slash
foundation,
services
and
that's
all
in
like
one
thing.
C
E
It's
a
good
question.
I
feel
like
in
this
sort
of
questionnaire
thing.
We
should
definitely
make
clear
that
you
know
there
are
avenues
to
raise.
You
know,
questions
or
concerns
throughout
the
year,
and
here
they
are.
You
know
here
are
the
touch
points
but
yeah
beyond
that.
You
know
there
could
be
other
things
as
well.
B
I
think
my
gut
is
I
like
to
talk
to
everybody,
so
obviously
my
favorite
thing
would
be
like.
Oh,
let's
get
a
cup
of
coffee
and
chat,
but
that's
never
that's
not
going
to
happen.
So,
since
that's
going
to
be
off
the
table,
it's
probably
less
intrusive
and
more
thoughtful
to
send
to
do
this
format
that
we're
discussing
now
and
then,
if
there's
something
that
really
peaks
interest
or
requires.
You
know
that
we
say:
okay,
cool.
We
saw
that
you
said
this.
B
C
One
relevant
question
here
is
also
if
people
are
answering
a
question
now
who
gets
to
see
the
results,
is
it
the
cpc?
Is
it
some
smaller
subgroup
or
is
it
the
cpc
and
all
of
the
projects
or
what
is
the
group
of
people
that
sees
the
results.
C
E
C
My
guess
is
that
what
we're
going
to
end
up
determining
is
that
we
need
to
have
an
explicit
set
of
people
that
do
get
all
of
the
results.
Who
are
then
going
to
report
on
the
results
to
the
cpc
and
from
there
they
become
relatively
public,
but
filtered
so
that
anything
sensitive
gets
left
out.
But
is
then
still
known
at
some
level
within
the
foundation,
which
may
then
be
able
to
assist
in
a
way
that
the
foundation
does
want
to
assist
with
those
actions
that
might
be
upcoming.
E
Well,
what
I
was
wondering
about
emily
is
is
like
what
would
it
be
better
to
have
some
of
this
feedback
be
anonymous
to
get
you
know
the
most
honest
feedback
or
something
I
mean.
I
don't
expect
that
people
are
going
to
be.
You
know
cursing
about
the
cpc
or
something,
but
if
it
were
anonymous
then
maybe
we
would
get
more.
B
Well,
okay,
so
I've
got
to
stop
us
because
I'm
the
time
person
and
it's
12
48,
so
we
have
reached
time
limit
on
this
combo.
I
think
that
this
is
raised
a
really
important
element
of
the
review
process,
which
is
the
you
know,
fielding
mechanism,
an
anonymity
of
the
results
and
who
sort
of
gets
that
data,
and
I
think
that
should
all
be
noted
in
a
proposal
for
how
we
proceed.
So
this
has
been.
This
is
good.
B
I'm
gonna
have
to
stop
us,
though,
because
we
have
some
other
stuff
to
chat
about
in
a
private
session.
Let
me
just
do
a
quick
review.
Can
oh,
can
I
do
this
now?
No,
I
can't
rachel
or
robin.
I
think
you
have
to
stop
the
stream.