►
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
Alright
looks
like
we
are
live
so
thanks.
Everyone
for
joining
this
week's
open,
Jas
foundation,
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
October
8th.
It's
what
2
p.m.
where
I
am
at
1600,
UTC
I.
Think
yeah
thanks
everyone
for
joining
the
issue
for
this
week's
meeting
is
number
342
and
we'll
jump
right
into
things.
Does
anyone
have
any
announcements
that
they
want
to
share?
We
haven't
had
jority
here
for
a
bit
so
I'm
assuming
she
got
something.
Yes,.
A
B
So
just
a
reminder
that
this
afternoon,
for
y'all
is
the
standards
working
group
meeting
if
that
meets
bi-weekly,
and
you
can
follow
along
on
the
standards
repository
for
meeting
issues
and
such
that
is
I'm
still
scheduled,
I
believe
and
that's
in
an
hour.
So
after
this
meeting
item
number
two
is
a
just
a
note
to
anyone
who
might
be
interested
in
helping
us
on
the
jquery
project
with
infrastructure.
We're
gonna
be
having
a
session
on
October
the
17th
to
talk
about
some
jQuery
in
for
improvements,
and
we
do
welcome
the
anybody
interested
in
that
I.
B
A
B
B
A
C
The
last
week
of
the
month,
so
it's
been
a
couple
weeks
back
I,
don't
think
there
was
anything.
There's,
certainly
nothing
new
to
report
since
since
then
other
than
like
I'm
sure
everybody's
aware
that
we
have,
you
know
Robin
on
board.
That's
already
been
announced,
so
that's
really
I
mean
that's
the
last
meeting.
Okay.
A
D
Everybody
got
project
finished
and
that
was
success
success.
So
this
year
we
tried
to
do
the
same
thing
and
we
had
two
students
out
of
two
students
playing
Google
code.
I
was
great
and
now
we're
actually
attending
the
mentor
summit.
Our
Mentors
two
of
us
are
going
to
finish
in
one
week
and
we're
gonna
collaborate
and
discuss
with
odd
organizations
that
are
participating
in
Google
some
code
and
to
have
ideas
for
next
year,
and
so
I
just
want
to
give
a
quick
shout
out
to
Steven
Harvey
girl
for
its
hard
work
and
cementery
great
fantastic.
C
A
C
A
Great
yeah
I
didn't
know
those
would
be
things
would
touch
on
agenda
items,
but
thank
you
for
the
update.
Michael
get
great
great.
So
the
first
agenda
item
is
issue
number
of
335.
This
is
the
request
for
legal
advice.
I
think
that
we
talked
about
this
last
week
as
says
Brian
mentions
here
and
the
last
comment.
Brandi,
you
want
to
come,
give
us
any
context
or
update
or
what
we
need
to
do
next,
one
this
one
yeah.
C
A
Great,
thank
you.
Next
issue
is
331.
This
is
administering
project
applications.
This
was
opened
15
days
ago
by
miles.
I.
Think
that
this
kind
of
was
this
lien
on
a
pea
that
you
had
open,
Michael,
yeah
three
to
one
which
is
still
open,
I
believe
in
letting
puts
a
little
gap,
and
will
we
let
see
transformer
bottom
we've
got
approvals
and
some
things
you
know
comments
addressed
here.
I
see
Charlie
has
a
few
minutes
from
before,
but
exists.
What
did
we
send
this
to
the
board?
C
A
C
A
A
C
Yeah,
basically,
this
was
just
taking
what
we
had
a
stage
zero
and
saying:
are
there
more
common
suggestions
of
what
we
need
to
do
to
move
it
to
stage
two
along
the
process?
I
think
you
know,
the
only
comment
was
to
add
some
brackets
somewhere
other
than
that
I
think
there's
been
some
approvals
and
I'm
guessing
like
unless
there's
any
objections,
some
point
we
should
just
slide.
We
have
enough,
although
a
few
more
might
be
nice,
we
only
have
four
people
who've
chimed
in
from
the
CPC.
A
C
A
C
A
C
A
A
A
A
A
C
B
B
Just
more
that
because
I
think
maybe
I'm
misremembering
the
issue
and
maybe
I
should
actually
click
on
it
and
reread
it.
But
I
thought
I
was
recalling
that
it
was
about
providing
like
a
space
to
do
that
or
a
pattern
or
policy
for
doing
those
things
and
to
me
I,
don't
know
I
that
I
connected
those
in
my
brain
to
kind
of
the
option.
You
know
that
I.
C
Don't
think
it's
so
much
about
technology,
but,
like
you
know,
I
think
part
of
the
suggestion
is
so
we
have
like
no
node
has
a
policy
that
says
here's
how
you
report
a
bug-
and
you
know
we
have
people
who
are
subscribed
to
hacker
one
I
think
the
suggestion
was
it'd
be
nice
to
have
a
group
at
the
open
jazz
level
who
would
accept
reports
on
behalf
of
of
the
projects.
I,
don't
you
know
it?
You
can
you
can
think
of
different
things.
C
One
the
project
or
the
open,
J's
foundation
could
say
we
should
work
on
and
define
here's
the
recommended
way
of
handling
secure
disclosures.
Then
you
could
say
as
a
second
level,
the
open
GS
could
actually
just
say
here,
we'll
handle
them
for
you
as
a
service
or
because
I
don't
think,
there's
I
mean
in
terms
of
infrastructure.
It's
more
something
like
you
know,
hacker
one
or
an
email,
or
something
like
that,
as
opposed
to
anything
you're
building
or
doing
anything
like
that.
G
So
I
guess
the
question
I
have
is:
is
there
a
project?
That's
explicitly
asked
for
this,
and
like
said,
this
is
exactly
what
we
need,
and
this
would
be
very
helpful
to
us.
G
So,
in
that
case,
I
I
would
suggest
that
we
consider
it
like
getting
instead
of
doing
something
for,
like
someone,
who's
asked
for
it,
having
like
going
to
multiple
projects
in
the
foundation
and
asking
what
would
suit
their
needs
because
I,
if
this
is
something
that's
intended
as
support
and
benefit
multiple
projects,
I
want
to
be
sure
that
we're
not
just
doing
something.
That's
like
someone
had
an
idea,
and
it
it's
a
good.
C
About
Ghana,
Michael
I
was
gonna,
say,
I
think
it
at
the
very
least
some
guidance
on
how
like
here's,
a
good
way
to
accept
security,
disclosures
and
and
that
each
project
should
have
a
way
that's
published
publicized.
It
makes
sense.
It
makes
very
much
sense
to
me
the
next
step
of
actually
having
the
foundation
handled.
It
is
a
is
a
whole
other
step
that
I'm,
not
so
sure
about,
but
I
guess
you
know
you're.
You
know
the
attorneys
point
understanding
what
other
projects
are
doing
would
be
an
interesting
first
step.
C
Like
does
everybody
happen,
have
a
from
our
existing
projects
in
existing.
You
know,
well-documented
here's
how
you
responsibly
disclose
vulnerabilities
and
in
if
they
do.
If
everybody
does
and
that's
you
know,
one
way
to
start
looking
at
it
is
like
okay,
we
understand
what
everybody's
doing
today.
Is
it
or
is
it
like
half
half
the
projects
don't
and
we
think
they
should
and
if
they
all
do
or
they
are
they
common
or
we
all
doing
something
different.
That
would
give
a
lot
of
information
in
terms
of
you
know
what
also
you
might
look
like
mm-hmm.
A
C
E
C
Think
that's
very
interesting,
but
I
I'm,
not
sure
I
would
do
it
in
the
meantime
like
it
might
be
like
if
we'd
want
to
validate
that.
We
think
we
should
do
that
as
a
you
know
as
a
step
and
then
it
requires
like
who's
gonna,
be
on
the
other
end
of
that
email.
What
do
they
do
when
they
get
a
boner
ability
for
a
project.
E
G
A
F
There's
like
one
thing
that
we're
not
like
we're
going
in
one
direction:
where
we're
talking
about
like
a
program
to
offer
to
projects
and
I.
Guess,
like
the
flip
side
of
this
and
I'm,
not
saying
that
we
need
to
do
it
would
be
whether
or
not
we
want
to
have
a
level
of
compliance.
That's
expected
of
projects-
and
perhaps
this
is
also
something
that
could
be
expected
of
maybe
on
the
impact
level
projects.
C
C
G
That
is
like
I
think
it
creates
a
space
where
that
becomes
an
expectation
rather
than
a
suggestion,
and
that
can
become
a
barrier
to
like
enabling
more
projects
to
become
successful
inside
of
the
foundation
and
quite
possibly
even
like
joining
the
foundation
or
considering
joining
it
of
there's
this
massive.
You
know
watching
the
list
of
things
we
need
to
do.
Even
if
they're,
like
suggestions
that
suggestion
becomes,
you
know
a
requirement.
All
right,
you
can
see
easily
seem
like
a
requirement
so.
C
I
agree
being
careful,
I
think
that's
like
as
part
of
the
figuring
out
what
the
guidance
should
be
or
the
Rodya
ask
would
be
we'd
have
to
work
through
those
things
yeah
but
like
it
could
be
that
you
know
it's
really
not
much
of
an
ask
and
like
say
the
code
of
conduct
it.
We
think
it's
important
enough
that
it's
worth
the
ask
right,
but
you're
right.
We
don't
want
to
tack
on
every.
You
know
we
need
to
make
that
we
need
to
look
at
understand.
F
They
have
an
issue
from
two
days
ago
about
tracking
security
working
group
in
oh,
that's
for
the
conference.
I'd
have
to
find
it,
but
I
I
could
swear.
That
I
saw
a
conversation
at
one
point
where
that
group
was
discussing
whether
or
not
they
were
interested
in
expanding
or
maybe
a
better
way
of
putting.
It
is
changing
the
scope
of
their
effort
yeah,
because
in
the
noches
project
we
do
have
the
security
group
that
has
been
focused
on
the
broader
ecosystem
and
not
really
node
core,
so
I
mean
I,
mean
I.
F
C
That
is
yeah
I
mean
that
that
is
in
those
discussions
are
taking
place.
I
think
concretely
on
this
one.
What
I
can
do
is
take
an
action
to
post
an
issue
in
that
the
existing
working
group
to
say
you
know,
is
somebody
interested
in
drafting
what
the
first
set
of
guy
guidelines
would
be
like,
and
it's
just
as
draft
as
a
suggestion
that
then
we
could
look
at
it.
That
makes
sense
because
I
think
I
think
like,
in
my
opinion,
this
is
something
this
is
something
interesting.
C
If
I
had
a
limited
time,
I
would
just
go:
go
off
and
write
a
suggestion
which
I
don't
but
I'm
happy
to
create
that
other
issue
which
says
hey.
Did
somebody
have
some
time
to
do
that,
and
you
know
the
I
think
the
scope
would
be
go.
Look
at
what
the
founding
you
know.
The
member
projects
already
have
in
place
and
make
a
recommendation
is
kind
of
like
a
baseline
security,
responsible
security
reporting
process
and
documentation.
C
A
F
There
is
a
request
from
someone.
I
had
initially
suggest
a
Travis
for
it.
Someone
else
suggested
github
actions.
It
could
have
actions
running
I
just
need
to
op
the
organ
I'll.
Just
basically
click
a
button
to
do
so
and
just
wanted
to
you
know
didn't
want
to
unilaterally
make
the
decision
to
click
that
button.
Does
anyone
have
any
concerns,
we're
turning
that
on
click.
B
F
F
A
F
H
A
And
this
issue
has
a
couple
of
boards
linked:
it's
the
post
bootstrap
work
board,
which
is
project
board
number
three
I'll
post
a
link
in
the
chat
number
of
things
done
here
in
the
in
progress
column,
we
have
issue
number
160,
which
is
documents
like
the
financial
process
for
Hanul
reports.
Menil
had
a
PR
open,
which
I'm
not
mistaken,
that
got
merged.
A
A
A
B
E
Didn't
get
signed
out
at
the
last
meeting
because
we
had
one
or
two
discussions
that
needed
to
happen.
We
had
those
discussions
yesterday
and
should
be
queuing
up.
The
vote
here
very
shortly.
I
actually
just
got
the
language
for
the
vote
from
legal,
so
yeah.
We
should
have
this
pretty
soon.
Hopefully,.
A
Next,
one
of
them
to-do
list
here
and
I'll
remind
everyone
to
you,
we're
gonna
switch
to
a
private
session
and
about
nine
minutes,
so
I'll
just
try
to
get
through
or
ten
here
and
them
to
that.
The
next
issue
is
291
in
the
to
do
column.
This
is
review
foundation
infrastructure
and
we
think
how
we
manage
it.
There
are
lots
of
comments
here,
but
nothing
in
the
last
month.
I
know
we've
been
kind
of
doing
infrastructure,
infrastructure
discussions
and
there's
a
specific
conversation
on
jQuery
infrastructure
happenings.
B
So
that
issue
should
be
related
to
number
333,
because
we
did
Brian
and
I
made
a
lot
of
progress
on
the
action
items.
From
that
initial
conversation
and
on
number
333
infrastructure
improvement,
follow-up
I
am
just
sharing
the
news
that
we
reached
sort
of
a
version,
one
of
that
work
and
we're
interested
in
having
a
follow-up
discussion
in
order
to
move
work
forward.
I
suggest
that
we
hold
a
working
group
meeting
but
I'm
open
to
other
ideas
and
there's
no
no
comment
so
I
think
I
would
put
it
to
the
group.
D
C
G
C
Way
you
have
now
and
even
if
it
lands,
but
then
it's
kind
of
like
an
it's
a
sort
of
point
to
start.
The
discussion
on
it's
like
this
is
what
you
can
get
today.
But
what?
Where
does
that
fall
short
for
the
projects
and
which,
what's
the
next
most
important
thing
to
try
and
maybe
add
into
the
list
or.
A
A
A
So
moving
on
the
next
one
of
the
to-do
items
is
add:
admin
policy,
Docs,
I
kind
of
get
a
little
sad
mention
this
one,
because
I
I'm
the
volunteer
to
move
those
over
no
foundation.
I
haven't
done
it
yet,
but
if
anyone
wants
to
help
I'd
be
happy
to
share
that
load,
it's
a
slight
little
tighter
seventh
on
to
it.
There
are
a
number
of
policy
Docs
edit
that
we
have
in
the
note
foundation
that
we
could
PR
oberyn's
ago
cross
punch
of
counsel
and
discuss.
A
A
A
A
E
And
this
this
is
another
one
that
was
blocked
by
getting
the
new
CEO
a
text
put
in
place
after
he.
Yesterday's
call,
we've
I,
believe
resolve
the
last
outstanding
comments
on
that.
So,
as
I've
mentioned
earlier,
we're
ready
to
take
the
vote
on
the
legal
documents
at
the
board
level
and
what
that's
what's
that's
in
place
and
we
can
look
at
figuring
out
the
CLA,
tooling,
okay,.
A
Great
and
you've
got
a
comment
from
not
that
long
ago,
so
new
this
one
house
is,
and
so
those
movement
great.
So
it's
12:42
I
suggest
we
stop
here.
Unless
there's
anything
else,
anyone
wants
to
touch
on
that
won't
take
up
too
much
time
and
if
not,
we
can
just
jump
into
a
private
session
and
touch
on
a
couple
of
things
and
then
call
it
all
out.