►
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
B
A
Cool
we're
live
I
think
so
let
me
promote
Michael
Dawson
here
and
get
things
kicked
off
thanks
everybody
for
attending
another
episode
of
the
open,
J's
foundations
cross
project
Council
meeting
today
is
the
3rd
of
March.
So
303
thanks
everybody
for
joining.
Please
add
yourself
to
the
minutes
and
help
take
notes
and
do
we
have
anything
we
want
to
any
announcements
or
anything
we
want
to
talk
about
before
we
get
into
the
agenda
tickets.
C
D
A
D
They
used
to
be
earlier,
we,
you
know
we
had
them
starting
at
7:00
a.m.
Pacific
time,
so
we're
gonna,
try
9:00
a.m.
Pacific
time
and
see
how
that
goes,
and
so
we
did
bump
them
up
a
little
bit.
We
did
move
them
a
little
bit
later
in
the
day,
so
we'll
see
how
that
goes,
but
we
are
open
to
feedback
on
timing,
so
if
it
makes
more
sense
to
do
them
in
the
afternoon,
we
can
certainly
do
that
as
long
as
it
doesn't
overlap
with
another
open
j/s
meeting
so
that
we
can
stream.
E
G
A
A
H
E
H
Two
things
one:
if
someone
could
promote
Robin
that'd
be
great.
Thank
you.
I'm
separately
from
that
I
was
just
gonna
say
we
met
last
Friday
and
we
currently
have
a
meeting
and
in-person
meeting
scheduled
in
California
next
Monday
for
the
board
and
I
think
that's
more
of
like
a
strategic
meeting.
But
just
you
know,
kind
of
letting
y'all
know
that
we're
actively
meeting
and
working
on
all
these
things,
and
so
if
you
do
have
anything
that
we
weren't
able
to
get
to
last
week
that
you'd
like
to
have
the
board.
Take
a
look
at.
H
E
A
The
plan
cool
I'm
excited
about
that
I
was
gonna,
say
I,
you
know
I
I.
Never
even
you
know
try
to
attend
them
because
I
don't
know
if
it's
gonna
happen
or
when
it's
gonna
happen,
the
public
part
so
doing
it
first
is
so
cool
I
appreciate
that
what
time
is
that
one?
That
the
public
part
is
gonna
be
first,
what
date
I'm?
If.
E
A
A
D
A
You
awesome
cool
I
will
try
to
attend
that
all
right,
great
moving
on
the
first
item.
The
agenda
is
travel,
fun,
questions
for
project
community
members
from
the
summit.
Repo
jewelry
is
not
on
here.
Michael
I,
don't
know.
If
you
have
any
contacts
that
see
you
commented
I
mean
we
talked
about
this
a
few
times.
I,
don't
know
if
there's
a
I
guess
we're
looking
for
maybe
a
PR
to
take
what
jewelry
had
outlined
here
and
I.
Think.
A
A
Okay,
cool
moving
on
the
next
item
is
a
new
issue
here.
This
is
projects
with
Windows
and
Mac
installers.
This
is
a
an
issue
that
Brian
created
six
days
ago.
A
Signing
server
node
allows
for
authorized
installers
class
X
similar
process
for
Windows
installers.
The
last
board
meeting
discussed
with
our
projects
using
Windows
expellers,
so
I
guess
we're.
Basically,
this
is
the
call
for
projects
to
comment
whether
they
have
Windows
installers.
Is
that
accurate
is.
E
It
it's
basically
if
projects
have
lead
to
have
these
installers
and
need
you
know,
signing
certificates
and
so
forth
to
to
do
them.
You
know,
with
the
found
eight
would
having
the
foundation
manage
them
helped
be
helpful
because
for
certainly
from
the
the
node
side,
we,
you
know
we
got
the
foundation
to
renew
them
and
and
basically
be
the
manager
of
them,
as
opposed
to
having
to
you
know,
do
it
ourselves
and
expense
and
kind
of
stuff.
Okay,.
A
Can
you
do
me
a
favor,
perhaps
after
the
meeting
Michael?
Can
you
just
summarize
that
in
a
comment
and
tag
Dory-
and
maybe
we
just
need
a
direct
email
asking
the
projects
about.
B
A
Thank
you
cool
all
right.
Well,
moving
on
the
next
one
is
email.
Ii
created
this
in
our
last
meeting
opening
nominations
for
next
year's
voting.
Cpc
members
Chris
had
a
question
here
and
Michael
answered
I'll.
Get
into
that
in
a
moment.
I'll
just
say
that
Matteo
and
Michael,
and
myself
worked
out
some
language
for
node
reps
on
these
gift.
That
issue
was
created
yet,
but
otherwise,
oh
yeah,
it
is
Matteo,
opened
it
up
two
hours
ago
great,
so
we
have
an
open
and
the
node
space
Emily.
Do
you
want
to
add
any
more
to
this?
F
A
F
A
I'm
not
sure,
but
I
will
take
an
action
items
to
connect
with
jewelry
and
figure
out
what
the
next
steps
are
for.
All
aspects
of
this
next
year
is
cool
CPC
members
and
then
Chris,
of
course,
and
the
issue
raised
the
question
that
we
might
need
to
shed
some
voting
members
because
the
bootstrap
initial
year
we
took
on
a
few
extra
members
from
the
non
impact
projects.
E
So
I
guess
you
know
one
of
the
things
that
came
into
my
mind
about
shedding
voting
members
was
that
yeah
I
mean
last
year.
We
basically
said
everybody
from
the
you
know
non
impact
projects
who
volunteered
we
basically
brought
in
as
voting
members
right
and
based
on
the
governance
we
this
year
we
would
be
down
to
two,
and
so
the
impact
of
that
is.
We
have
less
people
who
are
voting
members
and
are
therefore
available
to
fill
certain
roles.
E
So,
for
example,
today
the
governance
says
that,
like
the
chair
has
to
be
a
voting
member-
and
it
says
the
director
representative
needs
to
be
a
voting
member.
So
I
was
just
thinking
out
loud
that
you
know.
If
we
were
concerned
about
having
less
voting
members
some
of
those
roles,
we
could
consider
whether
they
really
need
to
be
voting
members
or
not,
based
on
our
experience
so
far,.
E
That
would
be
like
you
know
if
it
would
be
one
way
of
addressing
potential
concerns.
I
don't
know
if
those
are
the
concerns
people
have
over
having
less
members
or
not,
but
it's
one
way
to
say
well,
if
it's,
if
it's
that
we're
reducing
the
pool
of
people
who
can
do
certain
things,
we
could
change
what
that
set
of
things
is.
A
I
mean
for
me,
my
experience
in
the
chair
roll
is
that
it
doesn't
need
to
be
a
voting
member
in
the
sense
that,
like
I'm,
not
that's
necessarily
representing
a
project,
I'm
kind
of
just
doing
the
work
of
the
council,
you
know
so
I
feel
like
a
regular
member
like
there's
no
need
for
it
to
be
a
voting
member
per
se.
I,
don't
know
if
anybody
has
an
objection.
Is
your
thoughts
about
that.
F
Can
we
leave
this
to
the
next
people?
Basically,
the
set
of
us
that
is
the
next
CPC,
because
this
sounds
like
a
problem.
This
sounds
a
little
bit
like
premature,
optimization
for
potential
future
problems
which
might
not
arise,
and
it
might
be
better
to
actually
experience
a
little
bit
of
those
problems
before
trying
to
fix
them
because
they
might
not
need
fixing
yeah.
E
F
E
Yeah
sure
that's
that's
fair
and
I.
Don't
I
kind
of
see
them
as
independent
things
anyway,
so
like
yeah,
one
doesn't
have
to
be
tied
to
the
other
and
in
terms
of
getting
the
votes
done
and
everything
we
shouldn't
walk
on
anything
yep.
Unless
people
said
wait,
a
sec,
we
should
have
more,
but
I.
Don't
think
anybody's
strongly
coming
out
and
saying
that
right
so
yeah.
A
G
Yeah
I
think
we're
still
we're
still
looking
for
people
to
self
nominate
from
projects
and
from
the
marketing
committee.
So
I
can
send
out
a
reminder
to
everyone,
but
if
you
all
represent
projects
on
this
call
feel
free
to
reach
out
to
me
and
Brian
and
nominate
who
you
would
like
to
represent
we'll
follow
up
again
by
email,
I.
E
A
E
E
Yeah,
it
says
each
type
will
project
may
optionally
provide
one.
So
it's
not
a
requirement,
but
you
know
it's:
they
have
the
option
top
level
projects
may
optionally
provide
one.
So
we
need
to
sort
of
go
out
and
ask
we've
already
talked
with
Merck
and
community
CPC
and
board
I
think
and
then
obviously
Robin
is
already
in
as
the
the
first
official
member
along
with
you
know,
we
agreed
to
bootstrap
it.
If
something
came
in
today
we
have
the
people
who'd
volunteered
for
the
that
initial
discussion
of
the
code
of
conduct,
mm-hmm.
A
You
know
all
right
well,
I've
got
some
action
items
on
this.
One
too
I'll
try
to
make
some
progress
this
week
expect
this
week
to
be
less
crazy
than
next
week.
I
mean
yes
than
last
week.
So
the
next
couple
of
items
on
the
agenda
here
are
on
Toby's
plate
and
I
spoke
with
Toby
recently
and
he's
been
sick
under
the
weather
in
some
form
or
fashion.
So
I
will
look
at
each
of
these
next
two
issues.
The
add
foundation,
wide
copyright
guidance,
pull
request
for
one
for
and
add
post-graduation
checklist
pull
request.
386.
A
Yeah
I'm
gonna
look
at
both
of
these
probably
the
close
graduation
checklist
first
and
try
to
get
that
one
over
the
finish
line
and
and
then
at
the
foundation
wide
copyright
guidance
just
trying
to
check
in
here
to
see
if
it's
anything
new,
no
okay,
so
yeah,
nothing
new
on
these
two
I'll
try
to
get
them
over
the
finish
line.
Let
me
just
make
it
quick.
E
A
A
I
A
Great
great
yeah,
maybe
you
and
I,
can
sync
up
tomorrow
and
see
where
everything
is
landing
and
then
and
then
the
folks
want
to
take
a
look
at
this
PR
in
the
next
couple
of
days.
Once
we
get
the
changes,
merged
that'll
be
great,
we'll
kind
of
try
to
move
this
forward,
it'll
be
helpful
to
have
and
also
is
needed
for
starting
to
charter
teams
and
such
yeah.
E
A
E
Yeah
I,
just
I,
made
it
sort
of
a
late-breaking
addition
to
the
agenda,
and,
given
that
we
have
time,
it's
just
an
idea
that
I've
been
thinking
about
but
and
I
thought
I'd
it'd
be
good
to
get
some
in-person
discussion,
whether
it's
a
good
idea,
a
bad
idea.
You
know,
from
my
perspective
one
of
the
you
know.
There
was
a
couple
reasons
that
bringing
the
the
JavaScript
fundation
node
foundation
together
made
sense.
E
The
the
logical
extension
to
that,
in
my
mind,
is
that
we
do
the
same
kind
of
thing
around
areas
of
collaboration,
so
not
necessarily
tied
to
a
project
but
areas
that
are
important
to
the
JavaScript
ecosystem
to
flourish
and
provide
a
way
that
we
can
sort
of
formalize
that
there's
the
particular
area.
So
you
know
what
I
have
to
top.
My
head,
I,
have
in
mind,
is
just
like:
you
can
apply
to
become
a
project
within
the
foundation.
E
You
could
apply
to
start,
you
know
a
collaboration
area
within
the
project
and
you
could
see
us
having
similar
governance
to
what
we
had
before.
In
terms
of
you
know,
reviewing
those
and
even
possibly,
like
you
know,
phases
for
incubation
or
whatever,
and
so
somebody
could
come
for
example
and
say
well.
You
know
I
think
that
we
should
have
some
collaboration
across
different
groups
in
the
ecosystem
on
security
for
JavaScript
projects,
and
they
could
write
a
proposal.
E
The
CPC
would
look
at
that
proposal
and
could
say:
yes,
that's
a
fit,
no,
that's
not
a
fit,
and
once
approved
you
know
they
would
join
the
foundation
as
a
collaboration
area
that
would
maybe
give
them
resources.
Like
you
know,
repos
I've
got
a
list
of
things
in
there.
You
know
marketing
support
things
like
you
know.
We
use
the
mailing
lists,
we
get
chest
slack
channels,
possibly
even
representation
on
the
CPC,
so
basically
support
for
helping
to
get
collaboration
going
in
that
particular
area.
E
I
list
a
couple
of
ones
that
you
know
I
thought
could
be
one
areas
like
security
testing
run
times
and
you
know
runtimes
would
include
things
like
node
electron
huazi
as
a
runtime,
so
webassembly
as
such,
probably
wasum
web
frameworks.
Javascript
standards,
package
management,
registries,
package,
ecosystem.
You
know
we
see
some
of
this
already
going
on,
say
within
the
node
project,
where
we
have
people
coming
together
to
talk
about
web
frameworks.
We
have
a
the
package
maintenance
team.
E
We
have
a
sort
of
ecosystem
security
team
and
you
know
we
also
are
starting
to
you
know
the
we
mentioned
the
admin
work
which
will
bring
in
teams
within
the
open,
JS
found
open,
Jas
and
CPC
scope,
and
so
there
there's
potentially
some
overlap.
What
I
haven't
you
know?
I
was
just
proposing
this,
because
I
think
it
would
be
more
sort
of
the
working
groups
were
kind
of
like
organic
from
people
who
were
already
within
the
foundation
within
the
projects.
I
was
thinking
formalizing.
E
A
Yeah
I'll
add
I,
like
the
idea.
I
mean
I,
really
like
the
idea.
I
think
it's
great
I
think
the
more
you
know
we're
thinking
like
this,
the
better
my
only
I'm
just
trying
to
think
through,
like
you
know
how
it
would
work
and
the
overlap
with
with
with
the
work
that
note
is
doing,
is
it's
sort
of
overlap
or
is
it
elevating
some
of
the
groups
to
you
know
to
the
open,
jeaious
level
rather
than
being
under
node,
and
is
that
problematic
anyway?
E
I,
don't
see
that
anything
like
there's,
no
I,
don't
think
we'd
ever
we
want
to
make
it
a
push
to
say:
hey
you
know,
group,
you
should
move
up,
it
would
be
more
of
like
because
I
can
I
can
still
see
that
like,
for
example,
even
you
know
the
web
frameworks
right,
you
could
easily
see
it's
like
that's
a
bunch
of
web
frameworks,
they're
not
all
in
the
in
the
foundation.
So
maybe,
but
maybe
they
still
want
to
get
to
collaboration,
so
it
could
make
sense
under
this.
E
At
the
same
time,
you
could
say,
like
the
current
effort.
Part
of
the
underlying
explanation
is
that
it
is,
is
to
get
a
better
relationship
with
the
node
project,
so
that,
like
the
node
API,
is,
are
a
good
fit
for
those
different
webs
web
frameworks,
and
so
from
that
perspective,
maybe
it
does
make
sense
to
just
stay
within
the
node
project.
E
So
I
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
clear
answer
to
like
you
know
it
all
moves
up
into
this
concept
or
not.
But
for
me,
that's
not
as
important
like
you
if,
as
long
as
we're
careful
not
to
say
two
projects,
you
shouldn't
do
this
kind
of
thing
internally.
If
that's,
what
makes
sense,
providing
you
know
more
opportunities
to
bring
people
together,
who
might
not
otherwise
get
together,
is
still
worthwhile.
Yeah.
F
Based
on
the
experience
I've
had
with
the
standards
group,
well,
the
open,
jeaious
standards
group
considering
this
now
I
I-
think
I
might
like
the
spate
collaboration
space
term
better
as
a
descriptor
for
how
we
are
actually
trying
to
act
and
what
we
are
trying
to
do
in
that
group
rather
than
working
group.
F
And
this
specific
thing
there
is
that
a
space
is
something
you
can
come
into
and
will
collaborate
in
and
possibly
go
away.
And
do
your
thing,
whereas
working
group
as
a
term
is,
has
a
strong
implication
of
this.
This
group
of
people
came
together
and
they
are
now
working
on
it
and
that
there's
a
relatively
higher
barrier
to
entry
to
a
working
group
rather
than
a
collab
space,
so
I
kind
of
like
it
I
really
don't
think
we
should
have
both
collaboration
spaces
and
something
like
working
groups
because
that'll,
just
that
would
be
confusing.
They're.
H
F
H
H
Because
it's
my
experience
in
node
example,
we
have
teams
and
we
have
working
groups
and
the
working
groups
are
chartered
and
have
authority,
whereas
the
teams
are
not
chartered,
don't
really
have
any
particular
authority,
most
things
start
as
a
team
and
they
really
only
become
a
charting
working
group.
At
the
point
that
like
it
is
so
obvious
that
they
own
something
that
it's
silly
to
not
make
it
official,
for
example,
like
the
release
and
LTS
teams
were
teams
for
years.
H
While
they
ran
all
of
the
releases
and
made
all
the
decisions-
and
it
was
only
kind
of
like
an
afterthought
to
turn
it
into
a
working
group,
so
back
to
kind
of
the
original
point,
I
can
understand
the
inkling
of
not
wanting
to
like
create
that
hierarchy.
But
at
the
same
point,
I
think
that
there
there
is
like
a
distinguished
difference
between
like
a
group
that
is
taking
on
a
responsibility
and
ownership
versus
a
group
that
is
just
like
a
collaborative
space
within
our
foundation
and
I.
H
H
The
group
is
in
in
essence,
asking
the
CPC
for
the
authority
to
be
the
ones
to
decide
like
that.
Someone
is
allowed
to
go
representing
the
foundation,
which
is
a
very
important
like
almost
arguably
legal
capacity,
because
the
foundation
is
going
to
be
a
member
of
these
groups
and
be
able
to
send
delegates
to
them
so
like
unless
we
want
to
have
to
go
to
the
CPC.
To
ask
for
permission
every
time.
We
do
need
something.
H
That's
slightly
more
official
to
kind
of
give
give
that
privilege
or
give
that
give
that
responsibility
to
the
group
and
so
I
guess,
like
the
distinction
that
I'm
making
here
and
maybe
it
doesn't
need
to
be.
A
distinction
is
like
I
think
that
there
is
room
for
things
that
that
have
less
oversight
and
less
officier
ssin
as
part
of
them,
because
they
don't
really
have
a
need
for
them.
F
H
Yeah,
actually,
that's
a
really
good
example.
If
the
CPC
intern,
like
did
Charter
the
standards
group
as
a
working
group-
and
there
was
this
other
space
that
was
doing
like
collaborative
stuff,
they
would
not
need
to
necessarily
get
permission
from
anyone
to
start
a
space
as
like
a
community
space.
But
if
folks
from
that
community
space
wanted
to
go
to
a
standards
organization
to
do
something,
they
would
be
approaching
the
standards
working
group,
not
the
CPC,
to
get
that
permission.
K
And
I
think
that
actually
introduces
some
interesting
potential
dynamics.
Folks,
you
know,
if
there's
a
sudden
interest
in
like
what
WG
or
some
other
standards
group
that,
like
we
are
theoretically
about,
but
are
not
currently
or
you
know,
aren't
really
like
after
they
were
represented.
That
would
be
a
good
good
reason
to
for
that
group
for
the
working
group
to
spit
up
a
community
space
for
that,
for
example,.
H
But
I
do
think
for
what
it's
worth
like
kind
of
how
some
things
have
worked
in
the
note
project
and
been
really
great,
is
I.
Would
love
these
to
be
able
to
be
like
people
to
be
empowered
to
spend
these
up
from
the
bottom
as
well
so
like
if
people
wanted
to
do
something
related
to
standards
were
related
to
like
a
particular
order
or
a
particular
thing
like
they
could
spin
up
a
community
space
I
think
where
the
CPC
would
come
in
would
be
like
hey.
We
want
spin-up
this
community
space.
H
We
need
a
repo
to
do
it
in
and
that's
where,
like
the
CPC
would
be
the
body
that
can
help
with
that
and
then
they're
like
okay.
Well,
we
want
to
like
affect
this
thing.
We
need
some
help
figuring
out.
How
do
we
engage
and
that's
where
they
kind
of
loop
in
the
standards
working
group
to
help
support
them
and
then
hey?
We
want
to
go
to
this
standards
meeting
and
the
standards
body
would
kind
of
like
help
approve
that
I
mean
budgets
go
now.
The
CPC
would
come
in
and
improve
that
yeah.
E
H
I
I
think
what
I
described
right
now
could
could
sound
a
bit
like
a
bureaucratic
nightmare,
but
the
flip
side
of
it
is
if
we
make
it
really
easy
for
people
to
spin
things
up
and
make
really
clear
documentation
about
like
where
you
need
to
go
to
to
like
kind
of
get
approval
to
do
things,
and
we
make
that
approval
process
really
light
this.
Actually,
you
know
a
light
amount
of
bureaucracy
makes
it
much
easier
for
folks
to
navigate
the
space
without
having
to
have
a
lot
of
institutional
knowledge.
E
And
that's
a
little
bit
where
my
thinking
got
started
here.
Is
that
I
fielded
a
lot
of
questions
on
like
how
would
we
start
a
web
frameworks
team?
How
do
we
get
a
repo?
How
do
we
and
by
formalizing
a
little
bit
to
basically
say
hey
if
you've
got
an
coz?
This
will
all
depend
on
like
you
know,
somebody
who's
got
the
drive
in
the
interest
to
say:
hey
I
want
to
start
this
up.
E
If
there's
a
little
bit
of
governance
that
says:
okay,
here's
how
you
do
that
and
when
you
know
once
you
put
it
on
the
radar
of
the
CPC,
and
it
should
be
like
a
pretty.
You
know
easy.
The
CPP
CPC
looks
at
it
says:
yep
that
makes
sense.
Now
you
can
have
a
repo.
Now
you
can
have
this
kind
of
support.
You
know
I'm,
just
thinking
that
it
that
little
bit
of
formalization
makes
a
little
bit
easier
for
people
to
say.
I
know
what
to
do.
A
A
E
Thing
I
do
think
along.
This
is
I
think
this
might
require
a
charter
change
cuz.
It's
it's
a
little
bit
of
a
new
scope.
You
know
versus
bringing
in
projects
we're
saying
that
we're
gonna
bring
in
support
for
a
slightly
different
type
of
group.
So
I
don't
know
I,
you
know,
I
was
thinking.
We
should
at
least
bring
it
up
to
the
board
and
say
hey.
What
do
you
think
of
this
ideas?
Do
you
have
any
concerns.
F
I,
don't
think
we
need
necessarily
to
do
all
of
that
right
away,
as
in
when
we
had
projects
becoming
a
part
of
the
open
joy.
Yes,
we
had
existing
projects
rather
than
figure
out
ahead
of
time.
How
exactly
these
collaboration
spaces
would
be
represented
in
the
CPC,
for
instance,
or
otherwise.
Do
we
really
mean?
Do
we
need
a
chance
to
change?
For
that?
Can't
we
just
say
hey.
This
is
a
good
idea.
You
can
have
a
repo
and
go
from
there
and
then
start
fixing
things
once
you
know
they
need
fixing
yeah.
E
H
A
A
H
Before
we
go,
Michael
I
think
like
as
the
standards
team
has
been
moving
towards
looking
at
being
charter,
Kevin
I've
been
kind
of
like
trying
to
focus
the
vision
for
what
the
team
works
on.
It
is
much
more
a
facilitate
position
and
it
seems,
like
you
know,
a
standards
related
community
group
also.
Actually,
if
we
want
to
borrow
language
from
the
w3c
community
groups,
is
a
is
saying
that
they
do
have
an
alternative
to
working
groups.
A
A
A
H
Kind
of
there
in
the
last
standards
meeting
we
identified
like
the
three
main
things
that
we
need
to
get
done
in
order
to
be
in
a
position
where
we
would
feel
comfortable
as
a
chartered
working
group.
The
first
was
to
work
through
the
final
bits
of
governance,
and
we
landed
that
so
there
is
now
some
governance
specific
around
attending
external
standards.
Meetings.
I'll
just
drop
that
in
here
it's
pretty
lightweight.
It's
not
extensive.
It
mostly
says
open
an
issue
out
of
standards.
H
Agenda
label
to
it
add
a
handful
of
particular
bits
of
information
in
there,
which
we
all
agreed
was
you
know
important
information,
I
would
say.
The
most
important
thing
to
clarify
here
is:
we
do
have
a
request
here
of
like
the
estimated
cost
to
the
foundation
of
the
participation,
but
the
purpose
of
that
is
not
to
approve
the
travel,
but
rather
for
the
standards
group
to
like
kind
of
weigh
whether
or
not
the
like
benefit
of
the
engagement
is
worth
the
cost.
H
That
shows
that
there's
approval
and
support
for
using
those
funds,
so
the
CPC
could
base
the
decision
more
upon,
like
over
all
available
funds
and
allocation,
as
opposed
to
like
having
to
force
people
to
justify
the
spend.
Since
the
standards
working
group
will
have
kind
of
the
context.
There
was
something
someone
wanted
to
add
to
that
before.
I
continue.
H
Thank
you
so
then
the
hack
MD,
which
was
just
added
to
the
Google
Doc
we
started
going
through
to
kind
of
outline
like
what
the
scope
of
the
team
would
be
and
I
could
read
that
really
quickly.
The
purpose
of
the
standards
working
group
is
to
act
as
a
facilitator
for
open
J's
foundation
projects
to
support
their
engagement
in
various
standards,
organizations,
groups,
technical
committees
and
other
spaces
were
internationally
recognized.
Standards
are
collaborated
upon
there's
an
alternative
wording
to
the
above.
The
standards
working
group
helps
open
geospatial
projects,
navigate
technical
standards,
organizations
and
processes.
H
Responsibilities
include
make
open,
J's,
Foundation
project
contribution,
contributors,
aware
of
developments
and
relevant
standards,
help
them
formulate
a
standard
strategy
facilitate
when
different
projects
when
different
projects
needs
conflict,
support,
new
contributors
to
standards,
making
activities
mentor,
project
contributors
who
are
unfamiliar
with
standards,
making
process
I'm
not
seeing
it
in
there.
Although
I
may
add
it
right
now
of
make
recommendations.
H
To
the
cross
project
Council
regarding
standard
organization
membership,
because
we're
already
kind
of
doing
that
we
can
pack
on
this
text
afterwards,
but
I
figured
get
it
in
there
before
I
forget.
So
this
is
kind
of
the
second
part
of
what
like
we
need
to
do
as
the
standards
group
and
like
locking
down
this
text
would
kind
of
be
the
last
step
there.
Then
the
other
side
of
this
is
kind
of
like
a
need
for
where
this
would
land
and
that's
the
pull
request.
Go
was
referencing
which
exists
inside
of
the
current
flow
request.
H
Let
me
dig
it
up,
so
we
have
this
pull
request
here
for
admin
policy
Docs
and
one
of
the
admitted
ochs
in
there
is
working
group
requirements.
So
there
is
a
possibility
that
we
could
tease
those
working
requirements
out
of
this
if
it's
blocked
for
some
reason,
but
I
think
we're
getting
pretty
close.
H
So
if
you
look
here
inside
of
the
working
group
stock,
it
kind
of
outlines
what
working
groups
are,
how
to
join
one,
how
to
start
one
and
then
a
place
to
like
kind
of
insert
information
about
the
working
groups
themselves
and
that's
where
we
would,
where
we
would
put
in
the
reference
to
a
specific
working
group
that
we
have.
So
to
summarize,
the
kind
of
two
things
that
are
blocking
are
on
the
standard
side:
solidifying,
that
scope
and
on
the
CPC
side,
getting
those
baseline
leaked
documents
landed
as
somewhere.
E
One
quick
comment
on
this,
like
all
of
the
things
that
are
listed
in
there,
could
be
done
by
anybody,
I
think
I.
Think
I
think
you
want
to
have
included
in
that
list,
like
the
specific
asks
that
you've
mentioned
in
terms
of
like
being
able
to
choose,
like
choosing
who
goes
to
represent
the
open,
J's
Foundation.
E
A
Cool
thank
you
miles.
That
was
a
good
update
here.
There's
anybody
how
many
other
questions
we
have
just
two
minutes.
We
have
one
more
issue
here,
if
not
I'll
jump
right
into
it
and
I'll
just
say:
two
I
skipped
over
number
90
from
earlier
in
the
agenda
accidentally,
but
we
did
kind
of
touch
on
project
directed
funding,
so
we'll
hope
to
hear
more
from
Brian
next
week
on
on
some
of
those
details,
the
remaining
issue
is
from
the
standards,
a
team
again
issued
43
joining
the
Unicode
consortium.
Emily.