►
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
All
right,
we
are
live
thanks,
everybody
for
joining
another
episode
of
the
openjs
foundation's
cross
project
council
meeting
that
not
work.
Okay,.
A
Today
is
blur's
day
like
every
day.
It
is
the
wow.
Why
am
I
not
able
to
copy
and
paste
here
weird
anyway,
yeah
the
22nd
of
september,
thanks
for
joining?
Please
add
your
name
to
the
google
doc
if
you
haven't
already
I'll
drop
it
in
the
chat
here
for
all
the
friends
presents
and
of
course,
please
help
take
notes,
much
appreciated,
let's
jump
into
announcements,
anonymous
jackalope.
B
Jackalope
couple
of
announcements
for
today,
first
off
related
to
other
foundation
meetings.
We
do
have
a
standards
meeting
later
this
afternoon
at
2
p.m.
B
Eastern,
I
hope
you
can
join
us
check
out
the
github
issue
for
those
meeting
details
and
the
other
things
we
want
to
have
you
know
placed
in
your
brain
are
thinking
about
the
upcoming
2021
event,
which
I
know
is
like
crazy
to
think
about
that
it's
already
time
to
maybe
start
getting
the
program
committee
band
back
together
and
but,
if
you're
interested
in
being
part
of
the
programming
committee
for
the
2021
event,
let
us
know
so
that
we
can
make
sure
that
you're
on
the
email
list,
for
that
other
events
coming
up
include
the
amp
fest
amp
is
having
an
amp
fest
and
because
I
would
too,
if
you
know,
if
I
were
amp,
amp
fest
sounds
like
a
lot
of
fun.
B
It's
october
13th
and
you
are
everyone's
welcome
to
join
following
amp
fest
we're
doing
the
next
ama
with
the
emtsc
on
the
14th.
So
if
you
have
questions
for
the
amp
tsc,
please
submit
those
as
well
and
then
just
a
standing
reminder
if
you
are
interested
in
getting
more
news
from
the
openjs
foundation
community,
the
projects
at
list.openjsf.org
email
list
is,
is
free
and
available
for
you
to
subscribe
to
and
we're
we've
got
great
great
updates
and
content
coming
from
our
cpc
directors
and
from
yours
truly
on
a
really
regular
basis.
A
And
standards
meeting
later
today.
A
Fantastic
great
anything
else
from
anyone.
A
If
not,
we
will
try
to
quickly
breeze
through
the
agenda
and
then
spend
a
little
bit
of
time
talking
about
the
review
process
for
projects
that
we've
been
working
on
and
plan
to
do
a
bit
of
a
working
session
today
on
so
first
up
is
pull
requests
643.
A
This
is
add
examples
of
successful
applications,
toby
open
this
as
a
draft
pr
and
added
amp,
and,
as
he
says
in
here,
it's
we'll
leave
it
as
draft
until
we
get
some
other
folks
in
there
perhaps-
and
I
see
sendal
recently
commit-
has
a
comment
as
well.
Anything
you
want
to
add
here,
toby.
D
Yeah
I
mean
for
me
just
the
idea
is:
I
would
have
loved
to
had
to
have
had
some
information
of
that
nature
when
I,
when
I
joined
to
see
what
others
like
how
others
were
doing
this,
and
I
also
think
it's
it's
valuable
to
have
this
sort
of
level
of
transparency.
D
So,
if
others
that
have
similarly
filed
applications
in
the
past
feel
the
same
way,
it
would
be
great
to
do
that
now.
I,
as
I
said,
I
don't
want,
like
the
only
example
there
to
be
amp.
I
think
amp
is
like
a
special
enough
project
and
not
really
representative
of
what
most
other
projects
are
in
the
foundation
that
I
it
would
be
awkward
to
give
just
as
an
example.
So
if
others
feel
likely
you
know
likewise,
then
they
should
submit
that
whatever
they
have
and
if
they
don't.
E
A
A
Excellent,
so
quickly,
moving
on
the
next
one
is,
unless
someone
has
more,
please
interrupt
me
simplify
proposal
process.
This
is
635
issue.
635
next
step
is
the
pr
is
needed.
So
I
don't
know
if
we
need
to
talk
about
this
at
all,
but
I'll
definitely
open
the
call
again
for
anyone
to
to
jump
in
and
try
to
simplify
the
proposal
process
with
the
pr-
and
I
think,
even
if
we
just
got
something
started,
we
could
comment
in
the
pr
and
flesh
it
out
further.
A
So
if
anyone
wants
to
take
that
up,
that'd
be
great.
A
It's
still
blocked
on
me.
I'm
sorry!
Oh
okay,
no
worries.
I
will
skip
over
the
review
process
one
and
jump
to
the
governance
changes
for
collaboration
network.
Do
you
have
an
update
there,
michael.
F
A
Great
excellent
cool,
so
then
final
one
on
the
list
here
is
a
develop
annual
review
process
for
projects.
This
is
an
issue
592.
and
we
can
kind
of
jump
into
this
whole
working
session.
I
know
toby
you've
got
some
open,
prs
and
issues
I
think
and
from
work
that
chris
has
done
as
well.
Should
we
dive
into
that.
D
Yeah
absolutely
thank
you
joe.
The
first
thing
I
want
to
do
is
share
here
meeting
notes,
so
we
had
a
couple
of
meetings
on
this
on
this
topic,
like
as
a
small
group
of
folks
and
we
sort
of
ended
up
in
a
place
where
we
had
sort
of
concrete
actions.
We
wanted
to
run
right
away
and
sort
of
like
longer
term
blue
ocean
thinking.
I
don't.
D
I
think
it
would
be
useful
today
to
start
by
looking
at
the
concrete
stuff
first,
so
people
have
a
good
understanding
of
like
what
exactly
at
stake
and
then
maybe
either
next
week
or
if
we
still
have
time
today
to
sort
on
to
go
into
the
more
sort
of
like
long-term
thinking
around
this
does
that
make
sense,
sounds
good,
I'm
seeing
like
heads,
node
and-
and
so
let's,
let's,
let's
do
this
so
indeed
I
have.
I
have
filed
a
new
pull
request.
D
Maybe
that's
what
we
should
start
looking
at
as
a
proposal
for
a
growth
plan
template.
So
this
is
actually
pull
request.
647
and
let
me
just
share
the
links.
D
D
So
what
I
essentially
did
is
I
looked
at
the
progress
document,
which
is
at
the
root
of
our
cpc,
repository
and
turned
the
requirements
to
move
into
growth
stage
and
impact
stage
into
into
this
table
and
and
the
reason
I
added
the
growth
stage
requirements
in
there
is.
D
It
feels
like
a
number
of
projects
that
are
in
growth
stage.
Don't
necessarily
have
all
of
those
set,
because
some
of
them
were
added
after
project
one
growth
stage.
So,
for
example,
like
there
is
a
security
requirement
to
there's
a
requirement
to
accept
security
reports
and
publicly
disclose
that
method
of
fix
has
been
made
available
as
part
of
growth.
D
I
don't
think
that
this
was
there
when,
for
example,
amp
joined,
and
although
amp
has
such
a
policy
through
google,
I
don't
know
that
we
actually
have
a
policy
like
this
for
the
project
set.
So
the
idea
was
just
like
if
you're
in
growth
make
sure
that
you
actually
meet
the
requirements
of
growth
and
then
go
for
the
impact
stage
requirements
and
so.
F
I
think
that's
a
great
idea:
there
are
some
even
for
at
large,
aren't
there
yeah,
they
yeah.
We
could
add
those
too.
So
I'm
just
thinking
like
having
the
at
large,
because
I
think,
as
part
of
like
the
yearly
review,
it
would
actually
be
great
to
look
at
this
table
and
say
yeah.
Well,
we
added
a
security
requirement
and
none
of
the
projects
have
done
it.
F
D
Look
at
what
those
requirements
are,
so
these
would
be
the
same
requirements
that
you'd
meet
from
that
you
need
to
just
from
joining
the
foundation
right
yeah,
and
I
I
wonder,
because
I
actually
removed
a
bunch
of
the
growth
requirements
that
were
either
obvious
or
like
self-contained
and
or
sorry
over
contained
into
the
impact
requirements.
D
Like
you
know,
if
you
have
to
have,
if,
like
growth
asks
for
like
two,
I
don't
know
like
two
maintainers
minimum
and
like
impact
asks
for
five
since
there's
a
growth
plan
for
impact,
you
don't
need
to
sort
of
like
yeah.
F
D
The
acceptance
criteria
for
at
large
projects,
it
says
two
cpc
sponsors
to
champion
the
project
and
provide
mentorship
as
needed,
a
presentation
to
at
the
meeting
of
the
cpc.
I
don't
know
what
that
means.
F
D
Right,
there's
probably
like
a
a
word
missing
in
there
so-
and
this
is
what
I'm
looking
at
right
now
just
for
people
now
and
it's
the
at
large
project.
So
more
specifically
this
one
acceptance.
Oh,
I
could
have
a
link
to
the
acceptance
criteria
right
away.
Sorry
about
this,
I'm
just.
G
D
Into
that,
so
adherence
to
the
foundation,
ip
policy
upon
acceptance
or
large
projects
must
list
those
status
prominently
on
website
readme
I
mean
it
feels
like
this
is
covered
like
this
is
like
so
basic,
it's
covered
by
a
application,
the
application
process.
I
agree
with
your
point,
michael.
I
I
think
like
from
a
review
perspective
perspective
like
we
probably
should
go
into
this
stuff,
but
it
feels
like
this
is
different
than
the
growth
plan
for
growth
projects
wanting
to
reach
impact.
F
D
D
Yeah
but
but
I
do
agree
that,
like
finding
some
form
of
like
a
similar
sort
of
like
visual
way
to
represent
that,
where
we
can
actually
take
boxes
would
be
useful
in
both
and
for
that
review
too.
D
So
going
back
to
the
growth
plan
so
yeah,
I
really
split
that
up
into
growth
stage
requirements
that
felt
like
they
were
still
necessary
and
impact
stage
requirements.
I
actually
combined
two
impact
stage
requirements
into
one
and
also
filed
a
pull
request
on
this,
and
that
is
pull
request.
D
D
E
I
mean
toby
for
context.
There
were
what
three
breakout
meetings
on
this
and
I
think
we
looked
at
several
different
organizations
and
metrics,
and
the
idea
was
let's
make
this
informative,
but
more
lightweight
for
projects.
So
it
wasn't
going
to
be
a
ton
of
work
because
some
of
these
you
know,
project
health
metrics,
have
lists
that
are
miles
long.
So.
D
D
It
would
be
interesting
maybe
to
revisit
how
exactly
we
structure
these
different
stages,
but
all
of
that
is
good
and
and
fine,
but
we
also
need
to
focus
on
like
current.
You
know
specific
problems,
which
is
what
do
we
do
with
growth
projects
and
why
don't?
D
We
just
have
a
growth
plan
that,
like
is
based
on
the
existing
requirements,
which
is
essentially
what
I
did
there
sort
of,
like
very
you
know,
basically
just
copying
what's
in
the
progression
document
and
turning
that
into
something
that
each
project
can
fill
in
right.
So
for
that
I,
of
course
I
lost
the
tab
where
this
is
so
for
that
pull
request,
which
is
the
ads
growth
plan,
template
pull
request.
D
The
idea
would
be
that
every
project-
maybe
I
should
just
share
my
screen
here-
if
you
would
that
be
easier,.
D
Oh
good,
so
the
idea
here
is
list.
The
requirements
for
growth
stage
are
listed
here.
Those
for
impact
stage
are
listed
here
and
then
for
every
one
of
those.
The
project
would
need
to
look
at
what
its
current
status
is
right.
So,
for
example,
is
a
project
successfully
used
in
production,
but
at
least
two
independent
end
users.
So
you
know
looking
at
that
for
amp,
for
example,
since
that's
the
project,
I
would
be
working
on
on
this
for
well.
The
answer
to
that
would
be
yeah.
D
Absolutely
that
that's
easy
to
do
so
the
current
status
would
be.
You
know
something
that
you
just
put
like
more
than
two
so
that
there
would
be
no
plan.
The
timeline
would
be
that's
like
done,
and
you
just
write
a
you
know:
uncommon.
There's
there
are
commented
check,
marks
and
completed.
D
If
you
look
at
it
here,
you
can
see
those
you
would
just
uncomment
the
check
mark
and,
and
so
that
would
be
visually
quite
clear-
that
this
has
been
completed
already,
for
something
like
that,
I
know
is
something
that's
complex
for
amp,
which
would
be
a
healthy
number
of
committers
from
at
least
your
organization
like
an
impact
safe
requirement.
So
the
current
status
for
amp
of
this
being
super
transparent
here
is
most
of
the
committers.
D
Are
google
employees
right
so
the
desired
status
would
be
a
description
of
what
concretely
like?
What
concretely
would
that
look
for
amp
right?
So
you
know
how
many
like
there
are
probably
like
40
contributors
and
committing
commuters
that
are
google
employees.
I
don't
exactly
know
what
the
numbers
that
aren't,
but
it
would
be,
the
desired
status
would
be
worked
with
the
mentor
I
assumed
or
the
cpc
directly
in
terms
of
what
actual
number
do
we
need
to
get
to
there
right
and
then
the
plan
here
would
describe
well.
D
How
is
the
project
planning
to
get
there
like?
What
are
we
going
to
do,
and
what's
the
timeline
to
do
that,
and
so
in
a
sense,
this
growth
plan
is
both
an
assessment
of
the
current
situation
right,
a
description
of
the
end
goals
and
a
description
of
like
the
actual
concrete
tactics
that
the
project
is
going
to
do
to
get
there.
D
F
D
F
D
D
Yeah
no,
this
is
a.
This
is
really
great.
I
mean
this
like
not
only
solves
a
problem
in
an
elegant
way
in
my
opinion,
but
also
has
the
benefit
of
like
creating
the
plan
at
the
bottom,
so
you
so
then
you
really
have
like
a
sort
of
like
a
a
summary
of
like
the
the
thing
at
the
top
and
then
like
the
concrete
steps
that
the
project
are
going
to
implement
at
the
bottom.
D
D
F
H
H
Mean
we
started
on
this
discussion
last
time,
but
then
there's
sort
of
the
follow-up
questions
were
like
well,
there's
not
necessarily
like
we
kind
of
have
most
of
the
at-large
projects
are
kind
of
like
libraries
that
are
sort
of
single
purpose,
and
so
I
think
most
of
our
growth
projects
sort
of
thought.
They
were
maybe
more
than
that,
but
then
our
our
growth
and
our
impact
projects
are
kind
of
similar.
H
Just
like
I
don't
know
the
answer
to
the
question,
but
I
can
sort
of
see
why
the
growth
projects
probably
felt
they
were
growth
rather
than
impact,
but
also,
and
then
the
other
question
is,
is
the
foundation
I
mean.
I
know
it's
doing
a
lot
for
amp,
but
beyond
that
is
the
foundation
actually
providing
resources
to
help
these
projects
with
their
growth
or
are
they
kind
of
just
floating
around?
You
know.
E
J
I
Sorry,
I
would
think
that
the
growth
stage
should
be
primarily
defined
by
the
growth
plan.
I
In
that,
if
a
project
has
a
specific
growth
plan
that
they
want
to
to
get
through,
then
there
should
be
growth
and,
and
maybe
they'll
succeed,
maybe
they'll
not
and
go
from
there
rather
than
other
attributes
really
defining
whether
library
sorry
project
is
so.
The
other
attributes
can
define
whether
a
project
can
be
growth
but
being
in
growth
should
require
a
plan
and
then,
following
up
on
that
plan,.
D
Madeira
had
something
to
say:
can
I
just
address
like
a
quick
thing
that
dylan
has
mentioned
that
I
I
would
like
to
clarify
like
I
I
just
to
be
clear.
The
foundation
is
not,
as
far
as
I
know,
treating
amp
differently
than
another
growth
project,
and
I
just
want
to
like
it's
not
giving
it
more
resources.
I
just
want
to
make
that
clear.
H
H
D
D
J
J
Yeah,
so
I
wanted
to
say
that
we
had
significant
help
from
the
foundation
on
fastify.
So
I
I
cannot.
I
don't
know
I
don't
know.
I
haven't
been
following
what
amp
has
been
doing
so,
but
I
have
to
say
it
has
been
significantly
helpful
to
us
on
the
fastified
community.
So
I'm
not
so
I'm
not
necessarily
saying
that
there's
a
difference
in
attention,
but
definitely
we
had.
We
had
help
where
we
didn't
have
so
and
it
which
is
great
and
it
helps
keeping
momentum.
J
A
B
B
To
support
any
project
that
that
comes
to
us
and
says:
hey,
you
know
we
need
help
with
x,
y
or
z
like
we
are
on
it,
and
so
that
reactive
response
to
a
request
is
something
we
can
do
really
really
well.
What
I'm
hopeful
that
some
work
on
on
this
particular
space
will
do
is
allow
us
to
also
be
proactive
for
some
of
those
projects,
and
just
you
know,
be
able
to
with
some
kind
of
regularity,
go
to
them
and
say:
hey
we
saw
x
on
your
plan.
B
E
F
D
One
of
the
problems
I'm
seeing-
and
I
think
emily
was
bringing
that
up-
is
like
there's
this
notion
of
like
these
three
stages,
which
you
know
if
they
were
cold,
like
bronze,
silver
and
gold
right,
which
would
be
silly
for
a
whole
bunch
of
reasons,
but
just
bear
with
me
right.
We
would
be
thinking
of
growth
as
a
process
and
not
a
stage,
and
the
conversation
would
be
completely
different.
D
The
fact
that
we
have
the
silver
level,
which
is
also
growth,
is
making
all
of
these
conversations
a
bit
more
complicated
like
what
dylan
was
saying.
I
think
about
what
project
was
this
dylan
about
already?
D
I
was
talking
about
intern,
yes
yeah
but
yeah,
but
as
an
example
right
like
to
some
degree,
what
you're
asking
is
intern
feels
like
it's
a
silver
project
but
doesn't
want
to
become
a
gold
project,
and
so
the
fact
that,
like
silver's
cold
growth,
makes
this
whole
thing
weird,
and
so
I
think
that
what
we
need
to
answer
are
two
different
things.
One
one
question
we
have
is:
do
we
want
bronze
silver
and
gold?
F
I
I
think,
that's
that's
a
very
key
point.
You
know,
I
think
the
cncf
robbins
mentioned
just
has
basically
incubation
and
graduated.
F
And
you
know,
that's,
I
think
what
you're
saying
toby
basically
like
you,
can
join
and
then
there's
impact
and
that
that
would
be
like
the
two
and
and
growth.
You
know
you
could
say:
growth,
yeah
isn't
a
stage
anymore.
It's
just
anything
you
can
make
say
if
you
want
to
still
have
it
be
that
there's
the
plan
and
the
focus
it's
like
any
project
can
basically
apply
to
have
a
growth
plan
in
place
for
a
given
year.
The
cpc
might
say
yep.
That
makes
sense.
F
G
I
I
have
also
thought
the
similar
things,
especially
how
the
optics
have
gone
around
growth
specifically,
if
we
do
want
to
have
a
conversation
about
that,
I
I
think
probably
doing
it
like
designed
by
committee
style
is
not
gonna,
be
the
most
effective
right
now
and
like
do
it
having
an
issue
and
having
kind
of
a
place
for
that
that
we
can
focus
on
that
and
then
bring
that
to.
The
cpc
would
probably
be
the
most
effective
path
for
that.
D
D
No,
no,
okay,
sorry
and
joey.
Also
I
mean
I
yeah,
I
think
I
mean
jerry
was
like
yeah.
Let's
not
talk
about
like
bronze
and
silver
and
gold
and
absolutely
like.
I
agree
with
this,
but
this
like
I
I'm
not
suggesting
that
we
should
have
this
language
at
all.
I'm
just
suggesting
that
we
have
these
levels
and
these
levels
sort
of
imply
this
and
the
fact
that
we're
mixing
these
levels
was
the
concept
of
moving
from
one
level
to
the
other
or
growing.
D
A
So
timothy
has
their
hand
up,
but
I
just
want
to
say
something
really
quickly.
I'm
close,
so
I
can't
raise
my
hand,
but
I
wonder
about
the
idea
of
us
just
having
projects
and
there
would
be
a
flag
perhaps
for
like
impact
projects,
projects
that
are
perhaps
larger
in
the
community
and
have
maybe
a
little
bit
more
influence
over
the
work
that
we're
doing,
but
then,
and
that
would
be
like
a
flag
and
then
also
you
could
flag
for
like
growth
like,
and
that
might
be
a
temporary
thing
we
wanna.
A
I
think
we've
talked
about
this
in
some
of
our
out-of-band
meetings.
If
you
wanna
a
specific
achievement,
you
know
some
sort
of
goal
that
you
want
to
achieve,
and
you
want
to
mark
yourself
as
in
a
growth
phase
and
and
get
resources
and
such
anyway.
That's
just
something
I
was
thinking
about.
Timothy
go
ahead.
K
Yeah,
my
suggestions,
sort
of
might
go
with
that
a
little
bit,
but
I
agree
with
toby's
saying
that
growth
is
kind
of
confusing.
But
I
I
don't
mind
the
stages
I
just
I
think
growth
as
a
stage
is
a
little
weird.
So
what?
If
growth
was
removed
completely
as
a
stage,
and
we
had
checklists
for
moving
on
to
the
next
stage
so
for
at
large
to
impact
or
I'm
blanking
on
what's
before
at
large,
but
there's.
B
Nothing
true,
it's
emeritus
at
large
and
an
impact
and
then
growth
for
the
projects
that
have
some
goal,
that
required
extra
support
or
resources.
So
what
joe
was
suggesting
where
there's
no
growth
stage,
there's
just
you
know
like
like
we
have
projects,
and
some
of
them
are
tagged
as
retired
projects,
and
some
of
them
are
tagged
as
impact
projects,
and
some
of
them
are
tagged.
As
you
know,
we're
we're
all
good
over
here.
Y'all
projects.
B
That
that's
closer
to
what
my
original
vision
for
this.
For,
for,
like
the
the
stage
names
were,
you
know
just
to
be
like
fundamentally
clear.
I
just
think
it's
really
awful
to
you
know
use
language
around
this
that
may
indicate
that
there
is
some
hierarchy
or
class.
You
know
system
to
the
projects
when,
in
fact,
it
has
more
to
do
with
whether
a
project
needs
extra
marketing
resources
or
fewer
resources.
You
know,
and
for
a
given
time,
given
you
know
what
they
have
going
on.
K
Yeah,
I
think
some
of
the
things
we've
built
into
growth
are
helpful,
but
maybe
not
as
a
stage.
D
Well,
it
seems
dylan
was
suggesting
that
I
mean
that
not
growth
as
a
stage
was
important,
but
that
it
seemed
like
some
folks
felt
like
they
were
between
at
large
and
impact.
F
A
We
introduced
the
fourth
stage
called
something
else.
Please.
No,
we
have
two
minutes
left
and
emily
has
their
hand
up
so
does
matteo.
So
so,
let's
get
those
real
quickly,
roughly
the
same
as
what.
I
Michael
said,
I
would
be
happy
for
us
to
drop
growth.
It
doesn't
really
impact
makes
a
difference
in
in
how
the
they
get
selection
on
the
cpc
for
for
growth,
all
that
you
get
are
extra
nominal
resources
from
the
foundation
staff
for
marketing
of
those
purposes.
I
don't
think
that
is
a
limited
quantity
of
thing
for
us
to
to
have
a
whole
stage
to
limit
that.
I
J
So
yeah
it's
so
the
key
thing:
it's
that
at
large,
the
way
we
originally
bootstrapped
the
cpc
and
the
the
new
foundation.
J
They
want
to
do
their
own
thing.
They
are
here
to
get
minimal.
They
don't
want
to
participate
with
the
with
the
activity
of
the
foundation.
They
need
a
place
to
be
for
all
the
possible
reasons,
but
they
don't
necessarily
have
so
much
activity
going
on
or
other
things.
So
I
don't
know
that's
my
that
was
my
read
of
the
of
the
topic.
So
it's
or
at
least
a
lot
of
people
while
to
a
lot
of
project,
will
think
about
it.
To
be
honest,
just
leave
me
alone.