►
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
Great,
oh
there's
my
face
excellent.
So
thanks
everyone
for
joining
a
another
episode
of
the
open,
J's
foundations
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
the
12th
of
May.
We
are
still
locked
down
thanks.
Everyone
for
joining
the
issue
is
five
for
two,
and
should
we
start
off
with
any
announcements.
I
can
begin
with
the
announcements
of
the
election
results
shall
I
start
there.
A
B
So
let
me
just
go
ahead
and
say:
webpack
Tobias
I
want
you
Kris
Hillary,
mocha
I
want
you
Dylan
dojo
Anton
election
I
want
all
of
y'all
to
submit
sessions
from
your
projects.
This
is
a
great
opportunity
to
pull
people
who
are
registering
for
open
Jas
world
into
our
project
community,
because
you
know
we're:
we've
really
integrated
these
two
registration
flows.
C
B
I
will
I
will
let.
C
A
Bri
thing,
too,
is
with
just
to
add
on
to
that
draw
read
with
the
new
contributors
day
on
Monday,
it's
a
great
opportunity
to
kind
of
try
to
onboard
folks
or
get
folks
interested,
and
if
you
want
to
trial
out
any
sort
of
session
content-
or
you
know,
enablement,
feel
free
to
consider
me
a
resource
with
the
open
office
hours
sessions
that
we
are
doing
every
other
Thursday.
So
we've
done
yes,
Flint's
and
Express,
and
they
both
really
well.
So,
if
you
want
to
and.
B
The
other
announcement
that
I
have
is
just
to
give
you
all
more
more
time.
If
you
wanted
to
attend,
is
next
Tuesday,
it's
going
to
be
our
foundation.
Marketing
committee
calls
so,
and
you
can
keep
track
of
our
meetings
by
subscribing
to
the
public
calendar
and
then,
of
course,
if
you
have
questions
that
we're
going
to
cover
already
like
that,
just
asking
the
PR
marketing
channel
on
slack.
B
D
E
E
To
my
knowledge
we
will,
we
will
have
time
for
a
public
session.
If
anybody
has
anything
they'd
like
to
add
to
the
public
session
or
or
anything
they'd
like
to
add
to
the
agenda,
then
you
can
certainly
reach
out
to
me
or
to
Michael
or
to
Chris,
and
we
can.
We
can
take
care
of
that,
but
please
next
Friday
now.
A
A
A
B
D
D
G
A
C
D
C
D
G
G
A
I
A
D
A
G
D
A
A
The
next
item
is
updating
requirements
to
become
a
regular
member.
This
is
basically
I
think
needs
to
go
to
the
board.
Now
it's
been
open
for
18
days.
We
have
you
know,
at
least
you
know
full
majority
of
voting
members.
It's
not
more
and
I
can
update
that
list.
If
we
need
to
with
the
new
members,
I'm
not
sure
how
that
works,
but
I
think
we're
ready
to
go
to
the
board
on
this.
Okay,
I.
D
A
A
I
A
Perfect
thanks
for
the
update,
how
do
we
keep
code
of
conduct
up
to
dates
without
upstreaming
or
modifications
to
it
is
issue
503,
I
I,
don't
know
if
there's
really
much
to
discuss
here.
I
feel
like
this
is
something
that
the
code
of
conduct
working
group
will
continue
to
flush
out
our
first.
What
our
business
is
to
unblock
on
board
and
then
work
through
this
issue
and
the
populate.
The
Code
of
Conduct
issue,
which
is
slightly
further
down,
is
that
accurate,
I'm.
B
A
D
You
know
I
taken
an
action
a
while
back
to
go
look
at
the
special
interest
groups
in
the
end
when
I
looked
at
that
or
the
the
CNC
F
special
interest
groups,
when
I
looked
at
them,
I
think
they're
a
bit
different
than
you
know
what
I,
what
I
was
trying
to
propose
here,
they're
more
about
in
a
large
organization.
You
know
letting
smaller
groups
people
get
together.
They
have
you,
know
formal
language
for
chairs
and
how
you
get
elected
and
all
that
what
I
was
proposing
here
is
more
around.
D
Like
not
you
know,
let
it
finding
a
venue
for
people
who
are
outside
of
our
existing
projects
or
doing
the
work
of
the
CPC
to
get
involved
and
be
supported
by
the
foundation.
So
I
prefer
to
leave
the
language
as
it
is
to
avoid
confusion
with
traditional
special
interest
groups,
and
so
I
think
this
is
ready
to
move
to
the
next
stage.
You
know
it
consists
of
a
proposal
and
a
number
of
changes
to
the
Charter
which
I
actually
made
in
the
PR,
because
I
didn't
know
how
to
get
them
into
the
proposal
Docs
themselves.
D
What
I'm
suggesting
is
that,
if
you
know,
unless
there's
objections,
we
move
the
proposal
part
from
stage
zero
to
stage
one
and
I'll
take
what
I
have
in
the
in
the
current
PR
subtract
out
the
parts
that
would
be
changes
to
our
to
our
actual
governance,
and
you
know
if
we
gland
that
and
then
you
know
a
stage.
I'll
add
those
back
in
in
the
new
proposal,
so
I'll
figure
out.
D
D
So
I'll
do
that
I'll.
Take
those
out
of
this
current
PR
make
it
said.
Just
have
the
proposal
stuff
and
open
a
new
one
with
those
other
changes
and
have
a
reference
to
it,
and
then
it's
like
yeah.
Can
we
we'll
start
the
clock
for
hey
if
there's
any
objections,
without
any
objections,
we'll
land
by
a
sort
of
certain
time,
great.
A
Next
up
is
issue
438.
This
is
the
second
director
seats
host
July
2020.
This
issue
has
opened
up
January
7th
by
Michael
Dawson.
We
have
discussed
this
at
the
TSC,
so
I
guess
context
is
that's.
When
we
merge
the
two
foundations,
we
agreed
as
a
group
in
bootstrapping
that
the
second
director
seats
would
go
to
node
the
node
project
for
the
first
year
and
then
we
would
kind
of
figure
it
out
to
beyond
that.
We
are
at
that
point
now,
where
we
are
need
to
figure
out
beyond.
A
That's
the
the
nice
thing
is
that
the
CPC
governance
gives
us
a
lot
of
freedom
in
terms
of
how
we
figure
out.
How
we
want
to
you
know,
choose
who
will
be
how
the
second
director
C
will
work
and
we've
started.
The
conversation
had
the
conversation
over
at
the
GSC
and
note
as
well
as
the
community
committee
and
node,
and
you
know
we
can
continue
the
conversation
here.
D
I
think
my
take
was
the
discussions
at
this.
In
the
calm,
calm
and
the
TSC
were
happy
with
the
status
quo
like
there
was
no
strong,
it
has
to
stay
the
same
way
or
it
needs
to
change
kind
of
CPC.
Let
us
know
what
you're
thinking
you
know
it.
We
have
people
who
will
volunteer,
so
we
can
continue
with
the
way
it
is.
If
the
CPC
feels
it
should
be
different.
You
know,
there's
no,
it's
not
like
there's
a
preconceived
feeling
that
that's
bad
or
good.
G
So
I
guess
there's
kind
of
two
different
thoughts
that
I
have
right
off.
The
bat
like
one
would
be
I
think
the
easy
thing
to
do
is
to
keep
it
to
note.
If
people
don't
have
concerns
it,
does
it's
a
lot
of
work
being
on
the
board,
and
so,
unless
there's
other
people
who
are
stepping
up
I
think
that's
reasonable.
G
I
had
this
role
in
the
past
and
I
think
node
will
do
a
great
job
it
would.
It
would
probably
not
be
to
the
benefit
of
the
foundation
as
a
whole
if
this
is
just
kind
of
like
a
default
that
isn't
on
an
annual
basis
discussed.
So
if
we
don't
really
have
extensive
process,
we
need
to
do
maybe
just
kind
of
documenting
the
formality
of
what
we're
doing
right
now
would
kind
of
alleviate
some
of
that
next
year
make
it
easier.
J
Would
just
offer
that
we've
had
you
know
added
diversity
from
a
project
perspective
from
a
developer
type
perspective,
women,
engineering,
leadership
perspectives
with
our
new
Jex,
so
maintaining
sort
of
the
status
quo
you
know,
may
not
be
the
right
way
to
go
unless
we
want
to
I,
don't
know
I,
just
think
that
we
can.
We
should
maybe
opens
our
open
ourselves
up
and
take
a
little
bit
more
time
and
I
think
it's
it's
kind
of
a
rushed
decision,
a
little
bit
as
well.
So.
D
G
Decision
that
we
could
make
could
be
just
like
offset
it
by
three
to
six
months
and
keep
the
current
no
director
in,
because
we
have
a
for
example.
In
investing
this
case,
we
have
three
projects
that
are
likely
graduating
out
of
incubating
soon,
who
may
be
interested,
and
perhaps
we
could,
just
as
a
CPC
I
mean
like
we
really
can
do
whatever
we
want.
As
long
as
we
build
consensus
around
it,
we
could
just
decide
like
you
know,
let's
push
it
three
to
six
months
and
and
decide
again.
G
One
thing
that
that
could
do
that
could
actually
be
nice
is,
if
we
have
it
so
that
our
directors
are
off
set.
That
would
allow
the
incoming
director
to
be
on
board
from
the
existing
director
instead
of
having
to
on
board
two
new
directors.
So
with
that
in
mind,
I
actually
think,
maybe
even
just
either
a
postponing
by
six
months
or
B.
It's
like
having
a
six
month
term
I
have
a
distinct
feeling.
G
A
Because
she
was
that
I'll
just
say
real
quickly
in
the
Charter.
It
really
leaves
us
up
a
little
CPC
to
how
we
decide
to
do
this,
and
particularly
the
board
this.
This
board
seat
doesn't
need
to
be
per
se.
A
voting
member
or
from
a
particular
type
of
project
I
mean
that's
all
pretty
much
open
to
us,
so
we
can
decide
that
I.
H
No
I
mean
I
understand
the
historical
reason
why
no
Nana
see
you
know
had
the
default
seat
and
I
understand
that
node
would
maybe
want
to
continue
to
do
that.
I
mean
but
I'd
like
to
have
a
reasoning
as
to
why
it
would
continue
not
just
making
like
a
de
facto
thing.
I
think.
C
It
was
more
that
no
one
else
has
expressed
interest
and
it's
a
lot
of
work.
Just
what
I'm
hearing
but
that's
sort
of
what
I
was
getting
at
was
like.
If
we
could
outline
what
that
there's
somewhere
we're
clearly
defining
what
that
involves,
then
maybe
we
can
recruit
some
of
the
new
projects
and
see
if
anyone's
interested
and
see
if
I,
don't
because
if
the
only
person
that's
interested
is
someone
from
node,
then
it
doesn't
really
matter,
but
we
should
like
I'm,
not
even
sure
what
the
board
actually
has
to
do.
E
We
can
put
together
something
I
can
work
with
the
others
to
do.
You
know
like
one
page
or
like
what
you're
saying
is
what
the
expectations
are
and
what
you
know
what
typical
process
is
like
and
what
typically
gets
discussed
on
meetings
and
what
sorts
of
preparation
is
required.
So
we
can
put
something
like
that
together
and
yeah.
I
I
To
what
the
CPC
shelter
is
asking
for,
the
section
8
on
this
one
is
will
be
filled
based
on
fine
by
APC
and
approved
by
this
voting.
Dc
members
have
done
the
board.
The
PC
members
will
review
either
reconfirm
update
the
processes
once
a
year
for
the
first
year
after
the
formation
of
the
foundation
the
process
is
fulfilling
to
see.
It
will
be
as
follows:
no
js'
chooses
so
effectively
what
the
app
is
for
us
to
review
and
either
reconfirm
or
update
this
process.
Now.
A
Exactly
we
could,
we
could
just
open
it
up
and
if
you
know
if
likes
been
described
only
note
you
know
somebody
steps
up
from
note,
but
so
be
it.
But
if
other
people
step
up,
then
you
know
it's
just
a
community
seat,
so
I
mean
just
just
to
reiterate
really
quickly
Toby.
To
kind
of
answer
to
your
question.
We
did
discuss
this
a
node
and
note,
isn't
saying
we
must
have
this.
You
know
we're
saying
we're
open
to
whatever
the
CPC
decides,
we're
happy
to
volunteer
yeah.
H
Yeah,
no
absolutely
I
mean
I,
didn't
take
it
that
way
at
all
and
I'm.
Sorry,
if
I
came
across
as
imagining
that
I
mean
it's
just
for
me,
there's
a
difference
in
terms
of
this
is
a
node
seat,
or
this
is
a
seat
that
is
taken
by
a
node
person.
Wait
I,
mean
I
sure,
like
practically
its
ensign
and
ends
up
being
the
same
thing,
but
like
the
message
is
slightly
different
and
if
you're,
not,
if
you
don't
take
it,
the
historical
context
in
you
know
an
account
you
can
question.
D
C
A
A
A
H
A
My
list
great
I,
know
he's
kind
of
you
know,
keeping
an
eye
on
things.
I
think
he
gave
a
thumb
down
thumbs
down
for
the
meeting
today,
something
he
wasn't
able
to
join,
but
at
least
is
you
know,
is
he's
mindful,
so
you
know
see
how
that
shakes
out.
Great
thanks
is
there
anything
that
we
want
to
touch
on
before
we
move
to
a
private
session
just.
E
Somebody
needs
if
a
project
needs
a
code
of
conduct
list
or
an
infrastructure
list,
or
something
like
that,
and
then
one
of
the
things
that
it
does
is
it
adds
everybody
to
a
single
unified
list
called
technical
leadership
that
if
the
CPC
needs
to
reach
out
run
a
survey
or
something
like
that,
you
know
very,
very
rare,
odd
things
that
they
require
reaching
everybody
all.
At
the
same
time
that
will
be
available
to
us.
It's
a
heavily
moderated
list,
which
means
that
you
know
even
people
who
are
admins
in
the
listserv
can't
send
to
it.
E
Unless
they,
you
know
say
yes,
I
know
what
I'm
doing
so.
It
shouldn't
be
high
traffic.
But
again
the
idea
is
we
want
to
make
it
reasonably
easy
when
necessary,
for
the
CPC
to
be
able
to
reach
out
to
all
of
the
leadership
and
all
the
constituency.
So
that's
what
that
is.
If
you
got
that
notification,
it's
working
from
one
comment.
E
H
E
A
Thank
you
Brian
appreciate
all
your
efforts
there
you're
welcome.
I
will
share
two
really
quickly
issue.
543
is
a
issue
that
Brian
opened
up
about.
Should
outgoing
voting
members
automatically
become
regular
members?
We
don't
need
to
really
discuss
this
here,
but
I
just
want
to
it's
got
the
agenda
label
but
came
on
after
the
meeting
was
created,
so
I
just
encourage
folks
to
put
their
two
cents
and
that
issue
cool
anything
else
before
we
call
it
a
wrap.
I
have.
B
A
A
good
question,
since
you
asked
me
directly
I,
would
vote
that
we
do
another
code
of
conduct
working
session.
I
feel
like
we
touched
on
things
here
and
could
put
the
agenda
offer
a
week,
or
maybe
two
but
I'm
open
to
other
people's
opinions,
and
if
we
want,
we
can
open
an
issue,
and
you
know
solicit
opinions
there
as
well.
Whatever
people
it
makes
no
sense
any
comments.
I
think.
G
One
thing:
I'd
love
is
to
spend
time
on
the
working
session
next
week.
If
we
have
one
would
be
working
out
exactly
what
we
want
to
do
about
that
extra
board,
seat
and
I
think
it
would
be
good.
We
kind
of
ended
the
discussion
here
of
like
let's
continue
discussing
it.
I
think
approaching
it
from
a
working
session.
Perspective
with
actual
outcome
would
be
a
good
use
of
use
of
time.
A
All
right,
let's,
let's
maybe
plan,
then,
unless
anyone
has
any
objections
to
next
week.
You
know
at
a
maximum,
spend
the
first
half
of
the
time
on
the
board
seat
and
then
the
second
half
on
code
of
conduct
processes,
work,
cool,
all
right,
great.
Somebody
document
that
in
the
meeting
notes,
that'd
be
great
all
right,
so
we'll
call
it
a
wrap
in
terms
of
the
public
session
and
jump
into
private
I
will
stop
the
livestream
thanks
everybody
for
watching
and
I'll.
Ask
folks
who
are
not
members
to.