►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting -2019-07-30
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
B
A
And
look,
and
it's
a
reminder
to
folks:
we
are
alternating
on
Tuesdays
between
1600
BC,
which
is
the
current
time,
and
next
week
will
be
1800.
Uqc.
Also
welcome
thanks
everybody,
the
issue.
The
agenda
issue
is
a
272
before
we
get
to
the
agenda
or
the
project
for.
Does
anybody
have
any
announcements
or
anything
they
want
to
touch
on
before
we
get
going.
C
A
A
C
Chris
I
was
able
to
introduce
this
work
last
week
and
I
think
the
thing
that
I
you
two
just
get
the
feedback
on
and
input
on
was
whether
the
the
the
template
and
the
process
was
making
sense
and
was
meeting
focuses
expectations.
So
at
this
point
we
have
two
projects
that
have
started
to
go
through
this
board
and
that's
mocha
and
architect,
thanks
to
Chris
Hiller
and
her
supporters
for
for
dogfooding.
For
us
that
was
I
think
a
very
delightful
you
know
kickstart.
C
A
C
Right
so
and
they,
if
you
go
to
create
a
new
issue
now
you
can
create
a
issue
from
the
onboarding
template
and
so
there's
an
on
there's
an
issue
from
oka
and
a
separate
issue
for
architect.
I
would
like
to
go
ahead
and
make
the
issues
for
our
other
projects,
but
I
would
didn't
want
to
do
that
and
was
pretty
sure
that
the
template
was
what
we
were
looking
for
and
the
information
we
were
capturing
was
what
we
were
looking
for.
A
D
B
B
You
know
the
the
CPC
members
who
are
actually
going
through
this
to
say
yeah
like
Chris
just
has
it
looks
like
it's
covering
everything
or
if
we
want
to
really
be
sure
we
should
almost
you
know,
say:
okay,
if
it's
filled
in
to
the
extent
that
we're
gonna
fill
it
in,
have
the
rest
of
the
CPUC
members.
Take
a
look
at
it
as
if
it
was
a
new
application
and
say
you
know.
Okay
is
that
is
not
everything
we
would
need.
I.
C
Would
love
to
get
that
feedback
before
we
make
a
new
applicant?
You
know
deal
with
it
right,
like
I,
feel
like
it
would
be
unfair
to
a
brand
new
projects
to
deal
with
us
saying:
oh
wow,
this
isn't
quite
what
we
were
looking
for.
Let's
go
spit
ball
for
a
while
on
it
that
that
seems
like
it
might
be
really
frustrating
to
a
new
project
and
I
would
love
for
us
to
to
make
sure
that
you
know
our.
You
know
I
don't
lose
sense
for
us
before
we
do
that.
B
A
I'm
thinking,
Matteo
and
I,
and
anyone
else
from
anode
side
of
things
should
go
through
this
and
set
aside,
maybe
an
hour
or
something
to
really
kind
of
go
through.
It
I
even
wonder
too,
about
some
sort
of
pull
request
that
we
could
be
commenting
on
like
a
pull
request
with
a
checklist
or
any
any
other
expectations
of
the
sort
of
progression
might
be
a
good
place
that
to
lay
in
comments.
D
A
B
D
D
D
A
D
A
B
Yeah
there
is
there
concern
that
they
don't
know
what
to
write
in
or
is
there
concern
that?
If
it's
you
know,
we
don't
have
the
what
happens.
You
know
when
the
email
like
today
I
think
it
is.
We
have
an
email
and
if
something
was
sent
to
that
email
we'd
have
to
scramble
to
figure
out
what
to
do
and
that's
the
part
we're
trying
to
fix
right
right.
B
Guess,
like
my
first
thought,
is
actually
not
too
much
of
that
should
change,
because
what
we're
not
asking
that
any
escalation
processes
within
the
project
change.
It's
only
that
if
somebody
follows
those
and
wants
to
escalate
outside
the
project,
there's
an
option
to
do
that
through
what
we've
defined.
B
B
We
don't
we
don't
want,
like
every
escalation
to
just
bypass
the
project.
Right,
it's
the
like,
you
know
note,
has
its
moderation
policies,
it
has
all
sorts
of
things,
but
if,
if
you
go
through
that-
and
you
get
to
the
point
where
it's
like
no
I,
just
don't
I
just
can't
agree
with
what
they've
done.
B
D
B
E
E
So
we
haven't
I
think
the
path
forward
on
that.
Actually
it's
ascend.
It's
the
board
first
for
feedback
which
should
come
out
here
shortly.
I
should
be
able
to
get
that
out
shortly
and
then,
after
that,
once
we've
gotten
feedback
from
there.
Then
member
company
legal
takes
a
look
at
it
and
then
at
that
point,
assuming
there
are
no
major
changes,
then
we
published
that
okay.
D
E
D
Guess
if
we
want
to
link
back
to
the
actual
policy,
that's
where
we're
blocked,
but
if
it's
just
a
matter
of,
we
need
a
specific
line
to
put
on
the
site
and
in
the
repos,
those
like
copyright,
open,
J's,
Foundation
and
other
contributors,
or
something
like
that.
Yeah
does.
That
is
that
all
tied
together
or.
E
D
A
A
E
A
D
C
D
E
C
A
E
E
I
can
give
an
update
on
this
one
as
well.
I
mean
as
to
whether
it
should
be
a
blocker
I,
don't
know
that
it
should
necessarily
be
a
blocker
there's
guidance
as
part
of
all
this
stuff
that
we're
looking
at
looking
at
very
specific
guidance
on
what
to
do
about
clas
and
at
a
very
high
level.
The
current
draft
says
every
every
project
you
should
use
DCO,
regardless
of
whether
using
a
CLA
or
not
since
they're,
not
it's
not
an
either-or
situation.
E
E
We
should
also
have,
as
part
of
this
shortly,
a
tool
which
can
handle
which
would
replace
the
LA
bot.
So
these
are
all
things
that
are
in
flight.
I
mean
it's
I'm,
giving
you
kind
of
miniature
update
right
now,
but
I,
wouldn't
maybe
let
these
things
be
a
blocker.
At
this
point,
one
of
the
pieces
of
guidance
that
is
coming
out
on
CLA
as
well
is
that
your
projects
can
continue
to
use
them
if
they
choose
to.
But
that's
that's
the
project
they
want
to
use
then
we'll
help
them
do
it.
D
F
B
One
thing
I
noticed
in
the
template:
there
is
the
contacts
and
and
I
guess
this
is
where
it
gets
into.
Maybe
the
challenge
of
public
issues
versus
not
but
like
my
first
thought,
is
we
want
more
than
github
handles,
because
that's
that
that
may
be
like
a
mismatch.
We,
you
know
if
the
Foundation's
trying
to
notify
people,
you
know
having
the
opening
an
issue
in
github
or
and
then
making
a
comment
like,
even
though
maybe
like
even
actually
opening
something
in
public
in
github
isn't
feasible,
eat
right.
D
E
I
would
second
that
strongly
whether
we
I
mean
I,
we
can
certainly
maintain
an
offline
list
somewhere
of
what
github
handles
match
up
to
email
addresses.
If
somebody's
not
comfortable,
you
know
making
their
email
address
public,
but
either
way
I
mean
having
a
way
to
contact
people
directly
in
absence
of
direct
messaging,
which
doesn't
exist
on
github
yeah
like.
D
D
B
A
C
You
know
the
right
lot
for
between
making
it
really
easy
for
a
project
to
update
that
contact
and
people
come
into
that
that
right
person,
but
also
respect
the
privacy
of
different
information,
like
you
know,
their
their
email
address
or
phone
number
or
whatever
it
is
that
we
might
might
want,
and
if
we,
if
we
end
up
putting
on
in
like
too
many
places,
it
becomes
harder
to
maintain
not
over
time
and
I.
Just
want
to
blow
that.
G
E
That's
you
know,
that's
definitely
doable.
It's
really
convenient
from
my
end,
because
I
can
easily
add
people
mailing
lists.
I
can
easily
add
mailing
lists
themselves,
plus
we
can
have
people
subscribe
or
unsubscribe
as
need
be.
You
know,
I
can
assign
moderator
privileges
to
people
as
well.
If
there's
somebody
from
the
project
who
wants
to
be
in
charge
of
keeping
the
mailing
list
up
to
date,
I
mean
that
that's
that
would
work
really
well.
E
C
A
A
Of
course,
I
think
it's
really
important
and
they
get
a
certain
point.
We
should
set
aside
specific
time
for
well,
mostly
as
we
go
so
getting
back
to
the
agenda.
The
first
item
on
list
here
is
issue
260,
which
is
the
create
page
with
links
to
slash
channels
and
such
and
know
that
we
had
some
progress
there
and
there
were
some
comments
about
some
updates
and
particularly
when
people
joined
the
slack
channel
had
important
channels.
I
see
that
Brian
and
Chris
went
back
and
forth
a
little
bit
unprepared
and
yeah.
E
A
A
B
A
I'm
thinking
Brian
and
the
fu
and
closing
up
sounds
good
great.
All
right
next
on
the
agenda
here
is
the
yellow.
You
know
li5
project
charters,
which
I
just
found
out
the
Li
5,
is
explain
it
like
I'm,
a
five-year-old
house.
One
thing:
what
that
month
is
this
with
you
as
well:
Brian
in
terms
of
project
charter
templates
kind
of
what
this
issue
technically
is
now.
C
A
A
A
A
Next
on
the
list
here
is
to
go
through
the
housekeeping
board,
which
I
will
drop
a
link
and
chats
we've
got
lots
of
stuff
on
the
done
column.
I
will
we
can
start
by
going
through
the
in
progress
column
here
and
we
have
about
20
minutes
left
the
first
one
here
is
new
process
for
CPC
web
to
share
responsibility
for
travel
spawn.
This
is
something
that
Jonah
has
a
pull
request
open
for
and.
F
Yet
this
going
well,
there
hasn't
been
any
activity
on
this
pull
request.
For
the
last
about
three
days.
There
was
a
request
for
changes
from
Matteo
and
I
made
the
changes
there.
So
okay
I
think
you're
on
the
call.
If
those
changes
are
are
good
for
you,
you
could
maybe
update
your
current
status
on
the
pr.
If
there's
additional
changes,
then
you
can,
you
know
like
comment
in
there
and
then
we'll
address
those
should.
F
It's
only
been
three
days
yeah,
and
so,
if
there
isn't
any
further
comment,
I
mean
it's
definitely
been
identified
that
there's
things
we
need
to
define.
You
know
going
forward
in
this
process,
but
I'm
trying
to
get
you
know
the
basic
form
of
it
to
stage
zero
before
working
out
those
details
and
like
changes
to
how
the
fund
itself
is
managed.
So
I
guess
it's
waiting
for.
If
there's
nothing
further,
no
further
requested
changes
which
I
guess
we'll
see
you
in
the
next
day
or
so
then
I
guess
what
we
need
is
a
proof.
F
A
A
F
F
B
You
look
at
the
governance
talk,
it
does
say,
like
for
a
general
PR
I
think
we
did
talk
about
like
we
could
change.
We
could
have
something
specific
for
proposals,
but
I
don't
think
we
do
so
that
would
be
the
guidance
that
applies
I.
Think
it's
like
at
least
two
and
having
been
open
for
a
certain
amount
of
time.
Okay,.
A
F
F
B
F
H
A
Great
alright
great
so
unless
anyone
has
anything
else
to
add
with
and
move
on
from
that
issue,
the
next
one
in
progress
is
the
update,
move,
JSF
CLA
by
I'm.
Does
anyone
object
to
moving
that
to
the
column
that
is
waiting
for
board
slash
foundation?
The
last
comment
on
that
is
that
you
know
we're
going
to
get
some
provided.
A
A
C
Push
to
the
readme
and
we
wanted
to
include
it
as
part
of
PR
165,
but
there's
some
bug
in
github.
That
is
not
letting
me
by
being
an
an
admin
on
the
repo
and
miles
having
his
having
the
checkbox
clicked.
You
can
allow
edits
from
maintainers
I'm
not
able
to
push
for
some
reason
I'm
getting
in
permissions
there.
It's
that
same
one
you
had
with
mine,
Joe
and
I
reached
out
to
github
support
you're
like
what's
going
on,
I
got
a
response,
so
I
actually
just.
C
C
A
A
A
Alright,
great
so
I
think
we
really
kind
of
have
that
one
covered
that
I'm
going
to
move
on
to
the
next
one,
which
is
issue
160.
The
document
design
initial
process
for
handling
reports
to
report
org.
This
one
is
something
that
Menil
was
moving
forward
and
has
a
pull
request.
Open.
Excuse
me,
and
we
talked
about
this
a
little
bit
last
week
of
welcome
in
chat
I.
A
Think
that's
the
expectation
is
this
will
be
moved
to
the
stage
proposal
around
code
of
conduct,
which
I,
don't
believe,
has
been
moved
yet
and
then
Emily
has
a
few
comments
on
as
well.
That
looks
like
Manila
has
not
I
had
the
opportunity
to
look
at
yet
so
I
think
I
would
encourage
folks
to
take
a
look
at
what
we
have
here
and
him
to
know
about
moving
it
to
the
correct
place
and
whether
there's
this
one
forward
for
next
week.
Anyone
have
anything
else.
You
want
to
add
here.
A
A
So
the
description
is
we
likely
want
to
dress
better
governance
for
on-boarding
and
off-boarding
regular
members,
how
long
6
P
on
the
open,
what
kick
eyeborgs
team
Z
added
to
you?
What
now
actually
add
to
how
can
someone
object
publicly
or
privately
I
think
we
also
talked
about
notifying
project
leads
representing
project
per
se?
B
A
A
A
So
the
description
is
there:
a
number
of
admin
focused
policy
Doc's
will
be
recently
decided
not
to
facilitate
via
their
own
admin
recall,
since
we
only
have
one
top-level
council
there's
still
a
few
and
then
policy
doc.
So
we
need
to
live
in
the
most
project
councils,
just
transferring
a
leap
over
the
open,
Jess
or
gif,
avoids
management
policy,
number
expectations,
policy
and
working
group
requirements.
B
A
A
A
F
F
A
A
Great,
so
back
it's
through
all
of
our
to
do
stuff
in
this
host
food
prep
housekeeping
board
a
couple
of
things
that
are
waiting
for
the
foundation
one
minute
else.
If
we
talked
about
is
the
project
directive,
funding
I,
don't
know
Brian.
You
can
give
any
update
on
this
because
Chris
has
dropped
off.
This
has
been
talked
about
further
or
yes,.
E
Yeah,
so
we
we
had
a
three-hour
board
session
yesterday
discussing
strategy
and
and
a
variety
of
other
things
related
to
the
overall
direction
of
the
foundation,
and
this
is
one
of
the
topics
that
come
up.
There
are
a
substantial
number
of
open
questions
still
on
this,
so
you
know
the
the
update
again
is
that
there
is
progress
being
made
on
this
and
it's
under
active
discussion.
That's
just
that!
There's
really
it's
not
to
a
point
where
there's
anything
to
report.
H
E
So
the
the
notification
for
CFP
acceptance
should
be
going
out,
I
think
tomorrow,
I
believe
July,
31st,
yeah
and
then
okay,
everybody
who
gets
an
acceptance,
please
confirm
quickly
because
they
would
like
to
and
that's
the
schedule
next
week.
So
really
you
know
they
they
send
out
the
acceptance
for
the
CFP
and
then
wait
for
everybody
to
confirm
they
actually
do
intend
to
attend
and
present,
and
then
at
that
point
once
they
have
scheduled
constructed.