►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting
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
And
we
should
be
live.
Thank
you
all
so
very
much
for
dialing.
In
today,
after
a
an
exciting
week
last
week,
announcements
any
announcements
to
share
well.
B
I
would
just
like
to
thank
everyone
for
heaven
helped
on
Boyd
the
amp
project
over
over
the
course
of
the
last
six
months,
in
particular,
Jory
and
Brian,
and
Robin,
of
course,
have
been
tremendously
helpful
and
so
has
miles.
So
thank
you
all.
You
know,
and
others
too
so.
Thank
you
all
that
was
great
and
I'm
really
excited
for
the
next
chapter.
So
thank
you.
C
Yeah
and
just
a
thanks
for
the
CPC
I
mean
the
event
was
just
so
filled
with
amazing
content,
but
there
were
so
many
hours
that
all
of
you
put
into
organizing
it
going
through
the
CFPs
I'm,
just
so
much
of
a
heavy-lift,
so
I
hope
everyone's
announcing
that
they're
taking
vacations
in
the
next
week
or
two
or
month.
So
thank
you.
A
That
segues
nicely
into
one
of
the
things
I
wanted
to
share
is
that
and
the
next
week
we've
got
several
open:
J's
foundation
staff
members,
you're
taking
PTO
and
so
just
be
advised
that
through
July
10th,
you
may
see
slower
responses
from
Robin
Bryan
Rachel
and
myself
at
varying
points
for
vacation.
We
hope
everybody
else
is
taking
some
time
to.
A
Cool
yeah
and
then
the
other
big
announcement
is
that
we
have
a
standards
where
group
meeting
scheduled
for
today
and
I
was
under
the
impression
that
we
would
have
many
of
our
party
out
for
time
off.
I
was
thinking
of
like
miles
and
in
particular,
so
I
think
that's
still
on.
For
today,
at
2:00
p.m.
Eastern
and
the
last
usually
I
was
always
saying,
like
Oh
announcement.
Don't
forget
register
for
the
summit
that
it,
but
now
it's
announcement,
don't
forget,
fill
out
your
feedback
form
for
the
summit
and
the
end
the
event.
D
Other
announcements,
just
one
quick
one-
we
are
gonna-
be
rescheduling
our
monthly
AMA
for
July,
8th
and
we're
gonna
be
going
live
with
the
nodejs
security
working
group,
so
that'll
be
9
a.m.
Pacific
on
Wednesday
July.
A
C
Yep
because
of
the
event
last
week,
we
have
turned
our
board
meeting
into
an
email
board
meeting.
We
had
some
other
folks
out
from
our
board
and
didn't
have
quorum,
but
we
will
be
doing
an
email
but
we're
making
some
bylaw
changes
just
on
how
we're
structuring
our
board
by
ensuring
we
have
a
silver
seat
and
adding
an
end-user
member
and
just
some
other
minor
minor
things
so
yeah.
So
we'll
resume
and
we'll
sticking
off
an
election
in
a
couple
of
weeks
for
the
board
as
well.
A
E
Thank
you,
I
figured
I'd,
give
us
some
everyone
sometime
after
the
conference,
but
submitted
it
yesterday.
So
though,
I
spoke
to
a
bunch
of
people
both
in
this
group
and
on
the
repo
about
how
to
approach
this.
There
are
a
lot
of
thoughts
and
I
hope.
I
got
them
together.
In
this
poll
request,
the
TLDR
is.
E
E
You
know
not
creating
too
much
overhead
of
the
membership
program,
the
goal
here
being
to
find
folks
that
might
be
able
to
contribute
to
our
projects
find
people
that
have
projects
that
they
want
to
become
part
of
the
foundation
and
give
people
a
way
to
show
support
instead
of
swag,
which
can
be
tedious
and,
as
we
all
have
gone
to
conferences
and
have
a
million
swag
t-shirts,
it's
not
really
valued
unless
it's
unless
it's
something
that's
exclusive.
So
the
idea
also
is
to
gather
swag
store.
E
Instead
of
giving
away
swag
that
people
can
have
access
to
one
thing,
we
talked
about
a
little
bit
as
well
as
the
idea
of
an
ambassador
program.
So
possibly
we
could.
That
could
be
an
opportunity
to
actually
give
away
swag
anyway,
there's
a
pull
request
with
the
full
proposal.
But
if
anyone
has
any
thoughts,
feel
free
to
put
it
on
the
pull
request
or
discuss
here.
A
C
Just
one
other
thing:
first,
thanks,
Sarah
I
know
you
talked
to
so
many
people,
I.
Think
the
other
difference
from
the
original
individual
membership
is
that
we're
separating
the
board
seat
from
this
membership
program
or
supporter
program,
I,
think
I.
Think
the
Jas
Foundation
found
this
and
then
several
other
LF
foundations
found
that
when
you
have
something
so
large,
so
you
have
2,000
members.
It
would
be
very
difficult
to
have
quorum
to
convene
a
vote,
for
example.
So
so
the
CPCC
would
still
have
a
third
Community
Board
seat
to
determine
how
they
use
that.
A
E
First,
someone
commented
on
the
pull
request
about
closing
up
the
newsletter.
I,
don't
know
the
idea
is
to
give
members
something
that
they
cannot
have
as
non-members
I
guess.
This
could
be
part
of
the
discussion.
I
talked
to
Jory
about
it
a
little
bit
but
I,
don't
think
it's
a
deal,
breaker
I
guess
we
can
talk
about
it
and
the
pull
request.
B
Yeah.
Thank
you.
This
looks
really
good.
Thank
you
for
making
that
my
sort
of
like
oh
my
comment
would
be
around
the
membership
benefits
just
sort
of
emphasize
more
bringing
these
people
into
the
community
I
think
there's
a
sentence
that
says
they
won't
be
invited
to
participate
in
discussions
about
governance
and
your
initiatives.
B
B
So
yeah,
so
that
would
be
like
my
only
my
only
suggestion.
This
is
to
try
to
make
it
more
about
involving
people
in
the
community
and
less
about
sort
of
like
more
tangible
swaggin
goods
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
But
that's
you
know
my
purse
I
mean
I've
shown
my
perspective
on
this
already,
so
you
you
know
what
that.
E
B
That's
a
great
question:
I,
don't
know
what
we
want
the
CPC,
the
meetings
to
become
when
I'm,
not
sure.
If
someone
we
have
like
you
know,
15
members
that
join
CPC
meetings,
how
that
would
work,
but
I
I
think
we
should
try
to
promote
existing
channels
until
we
outgrow
the
would
be
my
suggestion,
but
to
me
like
that,
the
real
goal
of
this
is
not
to
get
2000
people
on
the
mailing
list
to
grow
to
community
so
I.
Just
that's
what
I
think
we
should
strive
for
these
kinds
of
tools
that.
E
A
All
right,
thank
you
again,
Sarah
for
doing
this.
It's
really
is
quite
helpful
and
I
really
value
your
your
work
on
this.
So
thank
you.
Thank
you.
Thank
you.
Please
review
and
add
your
comments
to
the
poll
requests.
So
we
can
continue
the
discussion
and
hopefully
advance
this
in
short
order.
I
will
move
us
on
to
issue
number
573,
which
is
about
continuing
with
the
current
the
CPC's
current
board
members.
Until
we
get
our
board
seats,
sorted
and
new
elections
happen.
A
Perhaps
you
know
and
I
believe
they
discussed
this
briefly
on
Friday
during
the
summit,
but
basically
the
plan
would
just
be
to
continue
with
our
our
current
team
until
elections
happen
in
a
few
weeks.
Is
there
any
comment
or
concern
about
this
very
loose
proposal
pending,
of
course,
his
pull
request
for
it.
B
A
G
Not
to
tangent
too
much,
but
just
a
meta
point
of
order
that
I'd
like
to
point
out
and
I,
should
make
an
issue
about
this.
Michael,
Dawson
and
I
were
talking
recently
about
the
staging
process
that
we
have
right
now
and
that
perhaps
it
might
be
worth
revisiting
and
significantly
simplifying.
That
process
made
sense
when
we
were
bootstrapping,
but
it
does
like
even
just
the
fact
that
we
have
like
stage
1
and
stage
0
like
really
all
we
need
is
like
the
group
makes
consensus.
G
A
A
All
right,
great,
so
I
think
I
will
record
that
on
the
issue
that
the
17
members
on
this
call
we're
all
plus
one,
and
so
if
the
group
agrees,
we
could
just
say
that
this
is
the
case.
So.
G
Yeah
I
mean
one
thing
Jory
also
looking
at
this.
This
has
been
open
for
four
days.
It's
arguably
a
governance
change
so
based
on
our
rules.
It
would
be
like
it
just
needs
to
be
open
for
14
days
with
no
objections
and
it
can
move
forward.
But
we
could
always
look
at
like
also
changing
that
restriction
and
bringing
it
down
from
14
days
to
7
days
for
governance,
changes
which
could
make
it
again
like
much
easier
to
pass
things
like
this
and
not
require
like
as
much
waiting
I.
H
I
G
A
Okay,
so
I'm
going
to
move
us
on
to
number
567
just
so
we
proceed
and
we
get
those
20
minutes
for
private
session.
This
is
incubation
process
clarifications.
This
is
also
from
from
Joe.
There
has
been
some
comments
on
this
issue
so
far,
but
the
the
spirit
of
this
is
to
capture
some
of
the
quarks.
Shall
we
say
of
the
process
that
we
invented
before
we
ever
did
this
and
so
I
think
you
know,
there's
some
some
good
good
issues
captured
and
that
we
should
definitely
be
discussing.
A
I
really
and
I'm
not
super
prepared
to
speak
on
this,
so
I
think
unless
there's
comments
or
questions,
I
will
move
us
on
for
a
time
when
Joe
can
join
us
and
introduce
the
topic
more
besides.
Issue
number
565
seems
a
lot
more
fun
issue.
565
adds
divvy
is
a
regular
member
and
I
am
super
+12
that
we
have
it's
been
open
for
15
days.
We
have
several
plus
ones.
A
B
A
A
A
A
H
A
Like
all
right
and
then
number
326
is
the
last
from
our
CPC
repo
for
responsible
security
disclosures.
This
is
usually
updated
by
Michael
or
Marcin,
neither
of
whom
are
here
shot
in
the
dark
weather,
maybe
Mike,
Samuel
or
tyranny,
or
who
else
is
sometimes
involved
in
the
security
group?
Anybody
you
know
any
updates.
A
J
Do
not
notice
I
do
not
know
of
any
updates.
I
haven't
been
tracking
that
except
that
I
think
of
what
was
it.
Marcin
said
that
he
talked
to
the
aunt
folk,
so
you
know
I
think
they've
been
doing
kind
of
responsible
disclosure
for
a
long
time
in
an
open-source
fashion.
So
my
guess
would
be
that
they've
got
a
good
source
egg.
If
no
sorry
that's
a
comment
from
Toby.
Isn't
it
but
but
no
I,
don't
know
I
I,
don't
know
a
lot
of
the
details
of
what
are
kind
of
the
blocking
issues
there.
A
B
A
A
A
I
A
I
Yeah,
so
this
is
I
believe
yeah.
So
this
is
an
issue.
We've
we've
discussed
a
few
times,
I
I,
don't
know
at
this
point
what
the
takeaway
is
and
maybe
I
that
might
have
been
said
and
I
just
didn't
document
it
last
time.
But
you
know
III
think
the
the
primary
thing
here
is
that
the
current
path
to
what
the
escalation
path
is
is
unclear
and
undefined.
We've
we've,
you
know,
talked
about
this
at
kind
of
at
length.
At
this
point
and
I
believe
you
know,
Michael
either
was
gonna.
I
I
I
can't
really
comment,
but
you
know
the
the
TLDR
here
is:
there's
not
really
a
clear,
clear
request
for
important
projects
of
how
to
implement
this,
implement
this
escalation
path
and
what
that
substantially
means,
or
at
least
I
I,
don't
feel
there's
and
then
the
things
that
are
documented
are
potentially
concerning
in
a
way
that
I
could
create
unnecessary
conflict,
I
think
so
yeah!
That's
that's
kind
of
the
state
of
it.
I
I
A
Group-
and
so
you
know,
I
would
suggest
that
perhaps
as
a
next
step
to
push
this
issue
forward,
we
make
sure
that
the
code
of
conduct
group
meets
in
the
next
week
or
two.
So
we
can.
We
can
really
iron
this
out.
Does
that
sound
like
a
reasonable?
So
we
can
take
the
label
off
for
now
and
just
kind
of
report
back
to
the
CPC.
What's
a
code
of
conduct
working
group
is
recommending
yep.
I
C
A
A
That
gets
us
through
all
of
our
agenda
items,
good
job,
everyone
yay
right
on
time
to
because
we
were
gonna
close
with
20
minutes
ish
for
the
private
session
to
discuss
on
feedback
from
that
five
days
of
JavaScript
party
that
we
just
had
I
mean
I'm
still
recovering
personally,
not
not
a
jory
right
now
and
then
the
other
thing
was
the
active,
some
some
activist
with
applications.
So
thank
you.