►
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
A
Cool
all
right
thanks
everybody
for
joining
another
episode
of
the
openjs
foundation's
cross
project
council
meeting.
Today's
date
is
the
29th
of
september
in
our
year
2020
the
year
that
never
ends
cool,
so
we
we'll
start
with
some
announcements
and
then
we'll
hustle
through
the
agenda
and
get
on
to
some
project
review,
work,
announcements.
First,
anything.
B
So
if
you're
interested
in
hearing
the
latest
from
the
amp
project,
I
encourage
you
to
sign
up
for
that
and
related
the
amp
tsc
is
going
to
do
a
ama
for
the
project
at
our
next
for
our
next
ama
and
that'll,
be
on
the
14th.
B
Also
amp
related
news.
The
nomination
period
for
advisory
council
members
is
is
coming
to
a
close
this
friday,
so
if
you're
interested
in
getting
involved
in
the
project
in
a
strategic
capacity
and
want
to
find
out
more
about
that
and
go
check
out
the
blog
on
amp.dev
or
or
ping
toby
or
myself,
happy
to
tell
you
about
that.
We've
got
an
upcoming
board
meeting
this
friday.
B
I
believe
they're
going
to
aim
to
have
a
public
board
meeting
as
usual
and
just
a
reminder
to
sign
up
for
the
projects
at
list
openjsf.org
if
you're
interested
in
keeping
in
the
loop
on
all
of
like
the
latest
announcements
and
things
like
that
from
the.
A
Cool
anything
from
the
board
side.
I
know
the
meetings
coming
up
soon,
so
maybe
it's
been
quiet
and
or
maybe
there's
updates
in
the
issues.
But
if
there's
anything,
anyone
wants
to
call
out
now
feel
free.
D
A
Cool
all
right
great,
so,
let's
party
done
getting
into
the
agenda.
The
first
item
is
issue
651.
This
is
clarify
the
license
of
the
materials
in
this
repo.
Emily
noticed
this
recently,
there's
been
a
little
bit
of
chatter
here
emily
you
want
to
get
us
up
to
up
to
speed
on
this.
E
Effectively,
it's
not
really
clear
what
license
if
any
is
assigned
to
the
material.
That's
in
the
cpc
repo,
it's
probably
mit,
but
given
the
phrasing
of
the
mit
license
that,
given
that
we
have
something
some
minor
scripting,
it's
kind
of
dubious,
my
non-lawyerly
phil
is
that
we
should
be
able
to
re-license
everything
as
creative
commons
and
then
at
least
have
a
license
on
it.
I'm
not
a
lawyer.
I
don't
know
if
there
are
any
hoops
that
need
to
be
jumped
through
here
or
thoughts
or
opinions,
but
that's
pretty
much.
It.
F
We
just
clarify
this
in
the
readme,
I
mean
the
whole
point
of
having
this
licensed
freely,
so
other
people
can
use
some
of
the
governance
work
that
we've
produced
as
templates
whatever
it
is
that
they're
doing
so,
just
like
clarifying
this
in
the
readme,
I
think,
should
be
enough.
D
A
D
H
I
mean
we,
we
had
like
very
explicit
advice
from
the
legal,
the
legal
side
of
thing.
Oh,
I
think
I
might
have
jumped
there.
I
apologize.
We
had
very
explicit
legal
advice
from,
like
the
lawyers
saying
what
to
use
where
and
as
long
as
like
we're
following
that,
I
think
we're
probably
fine,
so
maybe
double
checking
against
that
and
making
sure
we're
doing.
H
You
know
what
that
says,
and
that
came
from
brian,
so
we
can
probably
get
that
from
him,
but
I
I
there
was
there
was
never.
As
far
as
I
recall,
there
was
never
any
note
that,
like
you
need
to
be
explicit
when
there's
like
a
single
line
of
code
in
this
repo
that
needs
to
be
different.
So,
okay,.
F
Just
to
be
clear,
so,
first
of
all
like
in
the
ip
policy,
I
can
share
it
here.
Well,
in
the
guidance
it
says
clearly
that
both
cc
buy
and
mit
acceptable
for
documentation.
G
F
I
I
think
my
understanding
is
that
there's
actually
no
mit
license
in
the
repository
except
one
in
the
package:
dot
json.
That's
my.
A
That
would
be
great
cool,
thank
you
and,
and
thanks
emily
for,
for
you
know,
bringing
it
up
and
making
sure
we're
legit
here,
cool,
I'm
gonna
hustle
on.
Should
we
have
a
lightweight
mechanism
to
spin
off
ad
hoc
working
groups.
This
is
issue
649
that
we
had
talked
about
in
a
meeting.
A
Emily
has
a
suggestion
for,
like
I
think,
agenda
meetings
every
other
week
and
working
sessions
on
the
off
week,
which
I'm
also
not
necessarily
opposed
to
anything.
We
want
to
talk
about
on
this
one
toby,
you
started
it.
I
know
it
was
out
of
our
conversation,
but
any
thoughts
on
this.
A
I
think
this
is
just
basically,
you
know,
like
it
says,
a
lightweight
mechanism
to
spin
off
ad
hoc
cpc
working
groups,
so
we
don't
have
to
do
all
of
the
hoops
and
make
it
so
burdensome
when
we
do
need
to
spin
off.
You
know
whatever
sort
of
meeting.
This
would
probably
be
useful
for
a
variety
of
groups.
F
Yeah,
I
was
essentially
just
wondering
if
the
foundation
could
provide
us
with
sort
of
like
a
template,
and
you
know
easy
access
to
like
a
zoom
thing
and
like
a
a
doodle
to
organize
this,
I'm
seeing
jory
in
like
wave
hands.
B
Yeah,
that's
me,
so
I
I'm
curious
how
like,
because
right
now,
the
way
this
occurs
is
functionally
like
we
get
together
and
we
have
a
little
chat
and
we
decide
gosh.
It
would
be
sure
great
if
we
could
get
together
and
outside
of
the
cpc
meeting
in
a
very
ad
hoc
way
and
talk
further.
So
what
happens
from
there
is
a
person
sends
an
email
which
is
not
necessarily
like
the
open,
transparent
way
that
we
would
ideally
like
to
do
so.
B
So
is
the
problem
you're
looking
to
solve
to
make
that
more
of
a
like
open
thing?
That
is,
you
know,
systematized
in
a
in
a
way
versus
like
right
now.
The
way
we
do,
which
is
we
all
agree,
yeah,
let's
go,
do
that
and
then
we
email
each
other
and
have
the
meeting.
F
I
think
it's
two
things
I
think
one
thing
is
just
to
make
it
lighter
weight
for
the
person
actually
organizing
this
and
you
know,
probably
at
the
expense
of
like
foundation
staff.
So
you
know
that
that
that
might
be
a
fair
point,
but
I
think
that
the
more
important
one
I
mean,
the
one
I
was
more
concerned
with
is
it
feels
like
it's
not
clear
to
everybody
what's
happening
and
that
feels
suboptimal,
slash
not
really
transparent.
F
So
I,
like
I
want
to
avoid
this
idea
of
like
a
few
people,
you
know
getting
together
to
solve
something
was
other
people
feeling
like
they're,
not
part
of
it.
B
One
thing
that
I
remember
doing
for
some
early
ad-hoc
conversations
before
we
started,
like
the
code
of
conduct
working
group
and
and
standards,
was
opening
an
issue
on
the
cpc
repo
for
ad
hoc
meeting,
and
so
I
did
this
a
couple
of
times
where
it
was
like
ad
hoc
meeting
we'd
like
to
have
a
meeting
to
talk
about
blah.
B
Here's
a
doodle
link
in
that
issue,
and
you
know,
and
then
it
was
on
me
or
whoever
you
know,
to
actually
see
who
responded
and
then
create
a
calendar.
Invite
for
those
who
had
responded
to
the
doodle
poll.
We
do
have
a
a
foundation
zoom
a
couple
of
zoom
accounts,
so
I
mean
like
some
of
that
stuff
is
easily.
D
D
A
I
I
wonder
about,
like
you,
know,
an
issue
template
that
has
a
couple
of
these
links
in
the
issue.
A
You
know
a
doodle
kind
of
just
like
sort
of
a
checklist
here
create
a
doodle.
You
know
if
we
had
some
tooling
that
could
fire
off
a
hackmd
file,
but
that's
not
even
you
know
that
much
of
a
hurdle
jump
over
to
there.
You
know,
but
maybe
like
some
sort
of
checklist
of
these-
are
the
things
that
you
should
do
as
a
meeting,
organizer
and-
and
perhaps
you
know
here
are
a
couple
of
things
that
you
might
lean
on
foundation
staff,
for
maybe
we
have
a
generic
zoom
link.
That
is
easy
to
that.
A
We
could
put
in
a
meeting
issue
and
pretty
much
spin
up
for
each
meeting,
but
maybe
you
know
somebody
would
would
throw
something
on
the
calendar
and
send
out
invites
you
know,
there's
maybe
a
little
bit
of
leg
work
there,
but.
F
D
An
issue
it
could
paste
the
zoom
link
in
the
remaining
question
for
me
is
like
how
much
trouble
the
organizer
needs
to
go
through
in
terms
of
organizing
the
time
right.
Like
you
know,
it's
almost
like
that's
where
all
the
time
in
my
experiences,
if,
like
you,
want
to
do
an
ad
hoc
one
trying
to
find
doodle
and
filling
in
slots
and
then
if
people
actually
want
an
invite,
you've
got
to
send
an
invite.
That's
where
the
work
ends
up
being.
F
G
A
G
D
F
F
G
F
D
F
G
A
Which
we
can
have
in
the
issue
template
as
well.
You
know,
don't
forget
to
fire
this
off
once
things
are
scheduled.
I.
G
Who's
got
access
right
now,
so
we
we
just
changed
it
within
the
past
month
or
two
so
that
non
linuxfoundation.org
addresses
are
able
to
create
events.
So
right
now,
people
who
can
create
events-
let's
see
here.
So
it
is
so
robin
rachel
jory
joe,
and
I
guess
anybody
else
who
would
need
access
to
the
public
calendar.
A
D
G
The
other
way,
the
other
thing
to
keep
in
mind
here
too,
is
that
once
somebody
creates
an
event
on
the
calendar
and
adds
you
to
it,
you
can
then
go
add
an
arbitrary
number
of
people
to
the
calendar.
Invite
so
just
as
long
as
there's
somebody
who
is
able
to
create
the
initial
event,
anybody
who's
part
of
that
event
is
able
to
expand
the
invite.
D
Yeah
I'm
just
like,
if
you
have
to
go,
ask
somebody
else
that
immediately
is
like
they've
got
to
be
around,
and
so
unless
there's
a
reason
not
to
just
say
hey.
If
you
want
to
be
have
access
to
the
calendar,
and
we
know
who
you
are
sure
right.
D
D
That
that's
also
you
know
on
the
note
in
the
node
project.
Basically
anybody
who
ends
up
needing
it.
We,
you
know,
we
have
a
process.
We
ask
the
the
admin
generally,
it's
like.
I
I've
done
it
quite
a
few
times
I
sent
an
email
to
the
tc
income
com,
saying
hey.
This
person
is
going
to
be
hosting
meetings,
I'd
like
to
give
them
access.
D
If
nobody
nobody
objects,
we
basically
add
them
to
the
youtube
and
and
ask
brian
to
add
them
share
the
the.
G
I
H
A
Absolutely
cool
all
right,
so
we'll
move
some
of
these
thoughts
of
the
issue
and
and
and
start
to
flesh
out.
A
Be
good
in
a
template
great
thank
you,
toby
and
yeah,
we'll
iterate
from
there
awesome
cool,
good,
good
good.
The
next
item
is
avoid
duplication
of
impact
stage
criteria,
acceptance
criteria.
This
is
a
pull
request
that
toby
opened.
Thank
you
for
doing
that.
There's
not
a
lot
here.
It's
been
open
for
a
week.
We've
got
a
few
reviews
already
approving
this
isn't
really
necessarily
governance
right.
So
is
this
good
to
go?
Does
anybody
have
anything
they
want
to
add
or
anything
we
need
to
talk
about
here?
A
No,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
it
is
good
to
go
so
I
will
squash
and
merge
that's
good.
I
do
that
all
right,
so
that
is
happening,
and
it
is
done
great.
Thank
you.
We
have
another
pull
request.
This
is
647.
This
is
ads
growth,
temp
plan
template.
This
is
in
draft.
We
talked
about
this
last
time
we
just
want
to.
If
I
remember
correctly,
looking:
oh,
okay,
no
I'm
mistaking
this
with
a
different
issue.
A
F
Yeah,
I
am,
it
was
early
for
this
meeting.
I'm
never
going
to
do
that
again,
yeah!
No,
I
have
to
include
michael's
suggestion
in
there
and
yeah
I
mean
I
I'd
love
to
have
a
bit
more.
F
You
know
either
just
thumbs
up
if
people
think
that
this
is
good
and
we
can
go
with
it
or
a
bit
more
discussion.
You
know
I
feel
it's
like
it's
a
significant
thing
I'd!
Well,
I
don't
know
I
I'd
like
a
bit
more
input
before
saying
it's
ready
to
land.
A
A
All
right
great,
so
everybody
take
a
look,
put
your
thoughts
in
there
and,
let's,
let's
move
it
forward.
Thanks
for
doing
the
work
there,
toby
cool
anything
else.
We
want
to
talk
about
on
that
one
or
we'll
just
ask
for
people
to
check
it
out
now
this
next
one
was
the
one
I
was
thinking
of
pull
request
643.
A
Also
in
draft
this
one
is
adding
amp
as
a
successful
application
example.
A
I
think
it's
gonna
be
in
draft
until
robin
provides
some
additional
ones
that
are
already
public
but
aren't
linked
from
anywhere
robin
is
at
an
appointment,
so
she
couldn't
make
it,
but
I
will
maybe
ping
her
and
ask
her
about
this,
and
once
we
get
some
other
folks
in
there,
some
other
project
applications
in
there.
We
can
make
this
not
a
draft
and
move
it
forward.
F
A
Yep
yep,
which
is
good,
makes
sense
all
right,
cool.
Moving
on
to
issue
635
simplify
proposal
process.
We
are
still
looking
for
a
volunteer
to
to
work
through
making
the
process
simpler
and
and
trimming
back
the
stages,
perhaps
and
making
things
a
little
more
clear.
A
A
F
A
Yep
all
right
cool
cool-
if
I
can
I'll
I'll
try
to
take
a
look
at
it,
but
frankly
it's
been
a
little
bit
crazy
lately,
so
we'll
see
anybody
step
up.
Moving
on
the
next
one
is
issue:
632
provide
implementation
guidance
for
dco
cla.
A
It's
been
around
for
a
bit,
I'm
not
even
sure.
What's
where
we're
at
with
this,
so
I'll
prefer
to
my
friend
toby
in
front
or
brian
or
anyone.
A
Yup
no
worries
great
moving
on
next
issue
is
pull
request.
547.
michael
this
is
the
government
changes
for
collab
network.
A
Beauty
and
last
but
not
least,
the
the
rest
of
the
meeting.
This
is
the
develop
annual
review
process
for
projects
so
yeah
what
we've
got?
Oh
nice,
it's
two!
It's
only
31
minutes
past
so
that
that
the
timing
worked
out.
Well,
where
are
we
toby
and
and
and
chris
and
and
what
do?
How
do
we
want
to
move
forward
with
this?
Next,
you
know
25
minutes.
F
So
that's
a
great
question:
there's
a
number
of
pull
requests
open,
I'm
just
trying
to
wrap
my
head
around
what
we've!
What
we're
up
to
last
week.
D
One
of
the
fundamental
questions
I
remember
was
like:
do
we
want
to
drop
the
like,
basically
just
go
down
to
having
two
stages,
which
is
at
large
and
and
impact
yeah.
So
I.
F
F
Yeah-
and
I
answered
these
in
the
comments
that
michael
you
made
and
emily
you
made
today
in
between
two
meetings,
so
the
tone
is
a
bit
more
terse
than
I
would
have
wanted
it
to
be
rereading
it.
Now.
I
apologize.
F
So
essentially,
I
think
yeah,
the
the
goal
of
of
creating
that
pull
request
was
just
to
show
what
it
would
roughly
look
like
and
see
if
we
could
gather
sort
of
like
agreement
around
this
and
then
as
a
second
step
sort
of
like
figure
out
the
impact
that
doing
that
has
on
other
things
in
that
representation.
Maybe
in
others
I've
checked
the
bylaws,
it
doesn't
seem
to
have
any
impact
on
the
bylaws,
which
is
really
good
news.
F
D
I
think
that
the
discussion
I'll
give
you
my
two
cents.
This
description
was
that
some
of
the
the
comments
and
suggestions
were
that,
like
any
project,
would
want
to
have
a
growth
plan
potentially,
and
so
it
wasn't
necessarily
tied
to
being
in
a
particular
stage
or
necessarily
even
wanting
to
get
to
impact
and
the
way
it
was
currently
written
was
you
know
it
was.
D
It
was
seemed
like
a
stepping
stone
like
basically,
you
know,
you're
at
leverage.
Then
you
move
to
growth,
and
then
you
move
from
growth
to
impact,
and
if,
if
it's
that
anybody
could
want
a
growth
plan,
and
maybe
an
at-large
project
wanted
a
growth
plan,
but
then
just
end
with
the
end
goal
being
at
large
having
it
as
a
separate
stage,
didn't
make
sense
and
having
it
be,
something
where
any
project
could
ask
for
a
growth
plan
would
make
sense,
I
think,
is,
is
what
you
know
then.
Would
you
come
up
with
a
there?
A
I
kind
of
even
feel
like
the
term
growth
is
maybe
a
little
bit
off
in
terms
of,
I
think.
Perhaps
the
thinking
that's
been
developing
around
this.
I
think
it's
more
about
like
a
certain
level
of
increased
activity
at
a
for
a
fixed
time.
Perhaps
like
you
know,
you
could
be
an
impract
project
or
whatnot
and
be
like
we
want
to
do
x
or
y,
and
you
know
we
want
to
kind
of
enter.
This
quote
unquote,
phase
with
support
from
the
foundation,
and
you
know
some
activity
to
drive
that
goal.
D
It's
kind
of
like
asking
for
additional
resources,
and
you
know
anybody
can
ask
for
some
ad
hoc
help.
I
think
is
what
jory
pointed
out,
but
that,
having
a
having
a
way
where
you
can
say,
I
want
to
plan
for
growth
development.
You
know,
like
I
think
joe
said
it's
like.
I
want
to
do
something
special
and
I
want
extra
help
from
the
foundation
to
do
that
was
the
was
the
way
the
thinking
was
kind
of
being
discussed.
H
I
I
think
that,
like
the
problem
that
we're
facing
right
now
is
that
there's
two
fundamental
different,
fundamentally
different
patterns
that
are
implemented
as
a
single
pattern,
so,
like
we
have
growth,
we
have
impact
impact
is
like
measuring
the
state,
or
at
least
from
that
word.
It's
measuring
the
state
of
the
project.
So,
like
node
is
an
impact
project
I
mean
not.
H
This
isn't
the
only
reason
but
like
the
optics
of
that
are
it
is
impactful
in
a
way
that
is
like
deep
and
systemic
in
javascript,
a
lot
of
projects
aren't
going
to
get
to
that
level
and
then
having
growth
like
putting
putting
projects
in
growth
the
the
path
there
seems
to
be
that
it's
like
from
the
word.
It's.
H
You
are
growing
to
be
impact,
but
then
that
is
like
different
than
how
we
have
structured
impact
and
it
seems
like
the
meaning
we
actually
have
for
growth.
Is.
H
That,
like
you,
are
going
to
become
an
impact
project
which
I
don't
think,
isn't
a
reasonable
thing
for
every
project
and
we
don't
have
a
space
that
is
like
that.
We
don't
have
a
distinction
between
your
growing
or
your
like,
like
in
the
case
of
amp.
I
think,
is
actually
a
good
example
of
they
are.
I,
I
think,
a
good
project
that
is
in
growth
in
terms
of
they
have
some
checkboxes
still
to
go
before
they
hit
impact
but
like
I
think
they
meet
impact
pretty
aggressively
but
like
something
like.
H
I
don't
know
like
a
project
I
make
and
gets
four
million
downloads
a
month
or
something
that's
not
going
to
be
an
impact
project
in
the
same
way,
and
so
I
think
that
we
either
need
to
add
a
stage
or
refine
how
we
define
the
current
stage,
and
I
I
think
that
that's
those
are
our
options,
and
I
think
I
I
think
we
should
probably
try
to
pick
one
of
those
and
then
go
with
that
and,
like
start
narrowing
nearing
the
scope
of
what
we're
talking
about,
because
I
feel
like
we've
kind
of
been
talking
about
the
same
thing.
F
Am
I
understanding
right
tyranny
that
you're
saying
that
there's
we
sort
of
like
jumbled,
the
state
machine
was
like
two
different
concepts.
H
G
D
We
have
just
to
make
it
a
little
bit
more
complicated
like
in
impact.
We
have
something
in
terms
of
like
the
impact
to
the
overall
ecosystem,
but
we
also
have
requirements
about
sort
of
how
open
source.
I
don't.
Maybe
that's
the
wrong
word,
but,
like
you
know,
do
you
have
contributors
from
multiple
companies?
Do
you
have
a
governance?
That's
established,
so
there's
also
kind
of
reaching
some
level.
A
It's
interesting.
I've
even
been
thinking
too
about
impact
in
terms
of
the
impact
that
you
as
a
project
you
that
term,
but
would
have
on
the
foundation
and
the
work
that
we're
doing
and
and
such
as
well.
D
J
Okay,
I
just
I
wanted
to
talk
about.
Let's,
let's
get,
let's,
let's
get
these
growth,
these
these
growth
plans
written
up.
Let's,
let's
get
timelines,
let's
see,
how
do
we
get
the
projects
to
where
they
need
to
be
or
where
they
want
to
be
and
and
go
from
there
and
work
on
you
know
if
we
need
to
assign
mentors
or
whatever
that
that's
great
too
but
yeah,
I
don't
know
we
just
keep
drifting
off
into
this.
J
Let's
tear
down
the
stages
and
do
it
all
again-
and
you
know
we
did-
spend
a
considerable
amount
of
time
on
these
stages
and
decided
that
they
were.
They
made
sense
at
that
time
that
we
merged
the
foundations.
So
I
don't
know
just
saying.
H
Right,
I
guess
the
the
one
thing
I'd
say
on
that
is
like
we
should
not
be
afraid
to
iterate
on
this
stuff
that
has
caused
a
lot
of
problems
for
like
not
the
foundation
necessarily
in
the
past,
but
just
in
various
projects
that
are
now
in
the
foundation
and
like
certain
political
structures
and
stuff
like
that,
like
I
think
we
should
probably
be
willing
to
address
like
I
have
not
heard
someone
say:
no,
this
isn't
a
problem
or
no.
This
isn't
a
thing
that
we
should
talk
about.
H
Well,
maybe
async
talk
about,
but,
like
I
haven't
heard
someone
negate
that
at
this
point,
which
is
probably,
is
a
good
indicator
that
it's
something
we
should
do.
I
also
don't
think
that
that
should
I
I
think
that
that
should
probably
be
a
separate
discussion
from
or
that
it
should
be
a
separate
discussion
from
what
you're
asking
for
what
you
wanted
to
start
with.
Chris.
F
Yeah
agreed
and
just
to
be
clear,
I
think
we
can
do
both
sort
of
like
in
parallel-
and
there
is
I
mean
I've
opened
a
poll
request
like
647
that
we
talked
about
earlier
on
on
the
roadmap
itself
right
in
in
building
and
having
a
template
for
this.
If
we
want
to
add
to
that
conversation,
how
how
do
we
handle
mentorship?
For
this,
I
think,
is
a
topic
we
should
tackle.
F
We
could
tackle
right
now
and
like
do
have
the
concrete
discussion
about
for
the
projects
that
are
in
growth
right
now
to
see
what
they
want
to
do
and
organize
that.
I
think
we
should
have
this
conversation.
It's
a
separate
one
and
I
think
it's
a
it's
a
good
conversation
to
have
also.
D
Made
sense,
like
basically
you've
got
a
nice
start
for
the
template
there,
and
you
know
it
working
through
that.
So,
for
example,
like
maybe
working
through
that
template
with
chris
in
in
the
context
of
mocha,
for
example,
would
help
you
know,
make
it
very
tangible
and
adding
something
in
there
in
terms
of
like
a
mentor
or
something
seems
like
a
natural
extension.
F
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
work
on
a
plan
for
amp
on
this.
It's
going
to
take
a
bit
of
time
because
I
have
to
go,
see
the
tsc
and
do
a
whole
bunch
of
things,
but
using
that
that
template
here
see
what
it
would
look
like,
and
you
know
if
we
can
do
the
same
for
mocha
and
a
couple
of
other
projects
and
figure
out
how
we
want
to
do
the
mentorship.
F
G
So
kind
of
going
back
to
where
things
started
here
it
was
about
looking
at
allocation
of
resources,
and
if
there
was
you
know,
for
example,
if
there's
a
project
that
needed
marketing
supports,
it
needs
a
slice
of
rachel's
time
or
his
budget,
or
something
like
that
when,
when
all
stuff
was
being
put
together,
the
idea
was,
let's
figure
out
how
to
distinguish
the
needs
of
the
different
stages
from
each
other,
as
well
as
the
projects
which
are
eligible
to
claim
access
to
those
for
fear
of
spreading
things
too
thin.
G
So
I
I
think
that
was
really
the
the
understanding
there
was
that
we
wanted
to
make
sure
that
the
the
projects
would
say.
You
know
we
need
this.
We
need
this
money
or
we
need
this
time
or
we
need
this
whatever,
in
order
to
be
able
to
grow,
had
met
the
basic
criteria,
and
you
know
had
shown
that
they're
on
on
the
right
path
to
get
to
the
point
of
being,
you
know
one
of
these
larger
and
more
complicated
projects
that
has
a
diverse
and
healthy
ecosystem.
F
Can
we,
though,
I
mean
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt,
but
can
we
decide
whether
we
want
to
do
the
sort
of
like
figuring
out
the
stages,
discussion
or
the?
How
do
we
have
mentors
for
existing
growth
project
discussion
before,
like
we
speak
about
the
two
things
and
come
to
no
conclusion
about.
B
You
know
than
anything
else
I
would
rather
kind
of
learn
through
that
experience
of
getting
them
what
they
need
and
allow
that
to
inform,
say
the
re-tagging
or
the
rethinking
of
like
stages
or
status
quos
or.
F
So
we
have,
I
think,
seven
projects
in
growth
stage.
I
don't
know
which
of
those
have
has
emitted
a
the
desire
of
actually
having
a
growth
plan
and
moving
forward.
I
know
that
chris
has.
I
have
to
have
conversations
with
amp
about
this,
but
I'm
assuming
that
the
tst
would
want
that
too.
F
I
know
that
I
think
dylan
mentioned
last
week
that
intern
would
probably
not-
and
I
don't
know
about
the
other
projects.
So
what
about
we
already
try
to
see?
If
we
can
have,
could
we
have
mentors
for
those
and
who
would
those
mentors
be,
and
who
I
mean?
Is
anyone
actually
just
even
willing
to
do
the
mentorship,
because.
B
I
think
one
of
the
things
is
like
getting
pretty
explicit.
You
know
for
some
of
these
projects
like
what
what
are
those
goals,
and
so,
let's
take,
for
example,
web
hint
or
actual
web
driver.
Sorry,
because
christian
broman
isn't
here
to
tell
me
otherwise
but
taking
web
driver
into
to,
for
example,
if
they
had
to
if
they
said
well
what
we.
B
B
You
know
a
good
mentor
for
for
that,
because
it's
a
market
like
marketing
and
pr
related
versus,
maybe
and
moca-
wants
some
other
kind
of
mentorship,
and
so
a
different
person
is
more
so
so
to
me,
it's
like
not
just
finding
those
mentors
but
getting
specific
on
what
some
of
those
or
even
if
it
were
not
ready
to
be
a
project,
isn't
necessarily
ready
to
be
specific.
But
like
wants
a
partner
to
slash
mentor
to
like
it's
about
what
the
specific
goal
should
be
like.
J
The
way
I
understood
it
is
like
the
growth
plan
is
part
of
the
growth
stage,
and
so,
if
you
don't
want
to
do
a
growth
plan,
well
then
you
are
rightly
reconsidering
being
in
this
stage
right.
So
the
the
projects
that
want
to
that
want
to
be
in
growth
and
want
to
do
the
growth
plan
need
to
do
the
growth
plan
and
I
think
then,
from
from
there
we
can
maybe
figure
out
do
what
what
kind
of
mentorship
is
needed.
J
So
if,
if
you
know
like
what
you
said
about
a
web
driver
or
whatever
or
mauka,
it's
yeah,
I
mean
that's
just
going
to
be
a
case
by
case
I
don't,
I
don't
feel
like.
We
necessarily
need
to
like
start
assigning
mentors
right
now
or
anything
like
that.
But
I
think
we
do
need
to
get
these
growth
plans.
We
need
to
go
to
the
project
and
say:
okay,
we're
going
to
expect
a
growth
plan.
The
idea
here
is
you're
going
to
move
to
impact.
J
If
you
don't
want
to
do
the
growth
plan,
you
don't
think
you
can
make
it
to
impact
for
whatever
reason
then
we'll
move
you
out
of
the
stage
and
otherwise,
let's
work
on
a
growth
plan
together,
and
maybe
that's
where,
like
a
mentor
comes
in,
I
I
mean
again,
I
feel
like
that's
something
that
more
than
one
like
you
write
that
growth
plan,
that
I
assume
that
would
be
something
like
a
pr
and
the
cpc
would
need
to
like
okay
it,
but
but
again,
like
the
the
the
the
the
growth
plan
is
a
means
to
an
end
and
that
the
end
is
is
reaching
impact
stage.
J
So
we
need
to
just
kind
of
keep
that
in
mind
the
way
things
stand
right
now.
If
there's
you
know,
if
we
want
to
go
back
and
change
how
that
works,
we
we
can
certainly
do
that,
but
like
the
way
it
works
right.
G
J
Is
that
we
need
this?
We
need
this
growth
plan
and
that
growth
plan
will
be
necessary,
necessary
in
completing
the
goals
and
it'll
be
sufficient
to
get
to
impact
stage
for
the
projects
that
that
want
to
get
there.
So
I
didn't
see
your
pr
toby
and
I'm
I
assigned
it
to
myself
to
look
at
it,
and
I
want
to
call
that
template.
I.
F
G
F
The
desired
status
of
where
you
want
to
get
to
and
that
desired
status
in
most
cases
has
to
be
made
concrete
through
either
a
discussion
with
the
cpc
or
a
mentor,
because
when
you
say
substantial,
ongoing
flow
of
comments
and
emerge
contributions
like
what
does
that
mean,
it
has
to
be
decided
by
someone
right.
So
that's
something
where
I
don't
think
the
c.
F
I
don't
think
we
want
the
cpc
to
sit
every
other
week
and
discuss
like
specifics
like
this,
and
so
I
think
we
either
have
to
be
more
concrete
in
the
document
itself
or
have
someone
say:
okay,
you're,
a
small
project.
This
is
what
you
need,
because
from
for
most
projects,
this
is
for
most
of
those
requirements.
It's
not
super
clear.
Some
of
them
are
easy,
but
some
of
them
are,
like
you
know,
healthy
number
of
commuters
from
at
least
to
organization.
What
does
that
mean?
F
Like
you
know
in
the
last
month,
in
the
last
six
months,
for
your
is
that
10?
Is
that,
like
eight
people
like
what
what
are
we
looking
for
here
and
then,
once
you
have
these,
you
know
current
status
desired
status?
You
define
the
plan
to
move
from
one
to
the
other,
an
estimated
timeline
and
then
whether
that's
done
or
not,
and
yes,
there
should
be
a
pull
request
in
and
in
that.
F
J
D
F
D
I
think
that's
that's
what
I
I
had
always
thought.
It's
like.
We
may
not
have
said
like
10,
because
you
know
10
may
not
be
appropriate,
but
the
project
can
propose
what
they
think
is
appropriate
in
their
context
and
then
the
cpu
can
cp
cpc
can
say.
Well,
you
propose
two
committers,
that's
that's
really
not
enough
or
they
can.
You
know,
propose
you
proposed
a
hundred
and
we
say
oh
yeah,
that's
great
or
whatever
you
know
whatever
looks
you
know,
so
I
think
the
proposal
to
make
sense
in
terms
of
from
the
project
perspective.
F
D
D
F
It's
going
to
turn
into
at
the
root
of
the
repository.
I
imagine
okay,.
D
D
And
then
the
readme
could
explain
here's
the
process.
You
know
here
we
have
a
template.
The
project
basically
fills
in
the
template.
We
will
then
have
it
come
to
the
cpc,
and
you
know
it
follows
normal
consensus,
making
processes
or
whatever
I
forget,
if
there's
anything
specific
written
in
the
governance
in
terms
of
approving
them.
F
F
We
put
them
there,
we
add
a
chunk
of
text
in
the
readme
for
the
process
of
a
growth
proposal
that
includes
getting
it
approved
by
the
cpc.
Once
it's
ready
to
be
approved,
and
then
I
guess
we
have
another
approve
of
approval
at
the
end
of
the
process
to
for
the
move
to
impact
stage,
and
that's
it
yep
all
right.
I'm
just
gonna
write
that
down
here
and
we're
good
to
go
great
great
right
on
time
to
have
the
private
session.
Yes,.
A
Perfect
excellent
all
right!
Well,
thank
you
for
hashing
that
out
and
thanks
toby
for
taking
some
notes
and
and
moving
that
bit
forward.
Thanks
to
everybody,
really
cool
all
right.
Well,
that's
a
good
place
to
stop.
We
have
a
couple
of
things
to
chat
privately,
so
we'll
call
it
quits
on
the
live
stream.
Here,
thanks
everybody
for
joining,
and
we
will
see
you
next
week-
cheers
stopping
live
stream.