►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - June 26, 2019
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
A
B
B
A
Right,
great
cool,
so
let's,
let's
jump
into
the
agenda
I,
don't
know
like
I
said
everybody
who's
on
the
call
teach
type
your
name
into
Google
Docs,
and
you
know
everybody
can.
Chip
in
on
on
taking
notes.
That'd
be
great,
my
lcd,
the
preference
for
which
of
these
two
issues.
We
want
to
start
with
229
pull
requests
or
issue
234.
Both
of
them
are
in
that
chat.
Maybe.
A
Yeah
all
right
so
issue
number
234,
who
can
be
an
observer
or
we
Myles
opening
comment
here
is
Michael
Dawson
points
out
in
232
can
be
an
observer
is
not
explicit
about
requirements.
I've
always
been
under
the
impression
that
there
was
a
requirement
that
observers
be
active
in
a
foundation
project.
It's
not
documented.
A
D
C
B
C
E
E
E
F
C
G
My
question
is
actually
so:
I
understand
the
distinction
that
the
Charter
makes
between
observers
and
regular
members
in
terms
of
who
they
are.
It's
not
really
clear
to
me
what
the
difference
is
between
what
they
can
do
and
the
Charter
mentions
that
the
regular
members
can
take
on
roles
and
responsibilities,
but
I'm
not
entirely
sure
what
those
are
so
like.
What
can
I
regular
member
do
that
an
observer
can't
maybe
that's
a
way
to
sort
of
move
forward.
F
H
If
I
remember
from
the
discussions
around
the
formation,
wasn't
the
difference
that
regular
members
are
making
a
commitment
to
be
available
when
obligations
are
given
to
them,
whereas
observers
are
potentially
transient,
maybe
they
come
in
for
a
meeting
or
two
or
come
in
as
they
need.
But
you
know,
for
example,
the
CPC
wouldn't
delegate
necessarily
to
them
am
I,
remembering
that
correctly.
Somebody
else
who
is
in
those
meetings
might
also
have
more
clarity.
That
was
how
I
understood
I.
F
C
C
C
So
we
split
it
into
these
two
classes
where
it's
like
you
needed
to
be
on
that
list
to
attend
the
meetings.
It
was
very
easy
to
get
on
the
list.
You
just
had
to
open
a
PR
or
open
an
issue,
but
that
you
know
any
of
those
people
could
attend
the
meetings,
but
when
we
actually
did
account
for
quorum
within
the
meeting,
it
only
came
from
that
group
of
voting
members
I
mean
Wes.
You
wanted
to
add
something
yeah.
I
Absolutely
so
I'm
also
here
as
an
observer
and
I
think
it's
actually
pretty
important.
So
for
my
experience
coming
into
projects,
sometimes
it
is
really
nice
to
give
people
an
easy
way
to
be
involved
without
feeling
like
they're
stepping
in
too
far
so
my
example
here
is
I'm
I
work
on
the
express
project
when
I
first
started.
We
had
some
technical
committee
meetings,
but
there
was
no
role
for
an
observer
and
so
I
actually
didn't
join
on
the
calls.
I
Even
though
I
was
active
in
the
repo
I
felt
like
that
was
because
there
was
no
explicit,
you
know,
declaration
of
here's,
an
observer
role.
You
can
join
the
call
participate
and
then
maybe
delineating
what
you
can't
do,
but
we
didn't
have
any
of
that
and
so
I
actually
just
didn't,
join
the
calls
and
I
think
that
was
a
really
big
barrier
and
I.
Think
that
you
know
this
call
I'm
here.
I'm
talking,
I
feel
pretty
good
about
my
place
in
it
and
I.
I
Think
that's
because
of
the
explicit
call-out
of
an
observer
role,
so
I
think
having
it
is
important.
I
also
do
think
that
I
would
feel
weird
if
an
observer
was
able
to
block
an
issue
in
a
consensus
seeking
model.
So
maybe
that's
a
good,
also
a
good
line
to
say
if
you're
gonna
be
a
drop-by,
you
can't
block
issues.
B
Yeah,
actually
I
West
really
kind
of
he's
what
what
I
was
gonna
say
up
quite
well,
because
in
this
particular
case,
I
think
Jordan
great
example.
Dan
is
here
with
me
as
an
observer
and
he's
somebody
who's
very
active,
and
you
know
important
to
our
ecosystem,
but
certainly
not
somebody
who
necessarily
wants
to
be
in
on
these
meetings.
All
the
time
or
or
block
consensus
on.
C
I
think
that's
really
great,
but
at
the
same
time
now,
when
we
have
like
voting
members
and
regular
members
and
observers
and
now
we're
talking
the
guests,
it
just
feels
like
a
lot
to
put
on
people
to
kind
of
get
up
to
speed,
to
realize
that
everyone's,
mostly
the
same
and
they're
just
distributed
responsibility
would
like.
Would
we
almost
even
be
better
off
so
Michael?
For
example,
you
were
saying
who
maintains
the
repo
well
like?
Does
that
even
need
to
be
like
a
Membership
class
thing?
Could
we
just
have
a
thing?
F
Not
sure
I
I
think
I
I,
don't
think
we
should
add
a
guest
class.
I
mean
that's
what
started
this
discussion
so
I,
don't
think
more
than
the
voting.
Regular
and
observers
make
sense
to
me.
At
least
you
know
my
current
understanding,
but
I
I
still
believe
that
the
the
ones
that
we
have
those
three
are
are
important
to
have
that
those
three
as
different
ones,
I'm,
not
sure
I,
mean
in
terms
of
you
know.
One
of
the
comments
was
well.
C
J
K
B
A
A
G
So
I'm
sort
of
torn
between
both
having
Reagan
members
and
not
having
regular
I
think
as
as
a
current
observer
from
the
Kino
project,
I
think
there's
a
certain
empowerment
from
having
the
idea
of
regular
members
like
I'm.
Currently
thinking
of
whether
I
should
be
a
regular
member
or
not
I
think
I
qualify,
but
I
haven't
really
figured
out
yet
what
it
would
mean,
but
I
think
being
listed
somewhere
does
have
a
certain
empowerment
of
like
being
stimulated
to
contribute
more
actively,
even
though
I
have
resumed
lis.
G
The
ability
to
remove
myself
at
any
time
but
like
it,
has
a
certain
empowerment.
On
the
one
hand,
on
the
other
hand,
I
am
still
a
little
bit
confused
as
I
heard
the
term
blocking
now
a
few
times
I'm,
assuming
that
doesn't
mean
voting.
So
maybe
some
could
elaborate
a
little
bit
or
want
me
to
elsewhere
what
it
means
to
be
locking.
F
I
guess
I'll
give
the
very
quick
answer.
That
is
the
consensus.
Seeking
is
basically
we
work
to
try
and
get
everybody
in
agreement
with
the
way
forward,
and
blocking
means
that
you
know
you
object
and
and
and
be
convinced
to
not
object
and
in
those
are
the
cases
that
require
a
voting.
The
vote
of
the
voting
members.
If
nobody
objects,
like
you,
don't
necessarily
have
to
agree.
But
if
nobody
actually
objects,
then
things
can
move
forward.
I,
say.
G
G
C
One
thing
to
keep
in
mind
also,
this
is
the
least
my
own
philosophy.
Others
may
disagree
that
I
often
view
in
these
consensus
organizations.
Getting
to
the
point
where
we
need
to
vote
is
a
failure
state.
There
are
some
cases
where
we
legally
need
to
vote
on
things
or
we
have
it
in
the
Charter
so
like
new
projects
joining,
for
example,
require
a
two-thirds
supermajority
vote
but
like
in
general,
the
hope
would
be
that
that
vote
is
unanimous.
C
It's
important
that
observers
are
empowered
to
participate,
because,
if
you're
not
able
to
participate
in
the
consensus
seeking
process,
it
gets
really
odd
to
how
you
even
like
participate
in
the
discussion
is
what
we're
doing
right
now
is
consensus
seeking
now
I
do
think
that
the
guidance
that
Mike
suggested
up
here,
which
was
adding
the
observers,
are
encouraged
to
participate
in
volunteer,
but
should
refrain
from
disrupting
or
blocking
progress.
I
I
think
is,
is
like
a
decent
amount
of
language
that
makes
it
clear
that
they
still
can't
object
to
something.
C
E
A
L
Audio
back
now,
yes,
yes,
it's
just
a
very
quick
point:
polymer
from
the
last
one
ready
that
an
observer
can
join
the
conversation
and
join
the
collapse
of
consensus,
seeking
discussion
and
I.
Think
the
point
was
just
made
that
that
you
know
we
would
be
obliged
to
fully
resolve
their
concerns,
but
equally
they
just
have
to
convince
one
regular
or
voting
member
that
they
have
a
valid
concern.
And
then
you
know,
then
it
can
become
a
something
can
be
taken
forward.
L
A
C
A
B
A
B
So
anyway.
So
you
can
take
a
look
at
the
different
got
quite
a
few
comments
and,
and
that
sort
of
thing
one
of
the
was
trying
to
provide
some
more
guidance
in
terms
of
what
we're
looking
for
in
some
of
these
spaces.
So,
for
example,
in
the
description
and
those
areas
saying
hey,
keep
it
to
around
a
certain
word
count
like
don't
go
riding
a
three-page
essay
for
us.
That
kind
of
thing.
B
We
we
tried
to
decree
the
number
of
thoughtful
conversation
around
like
whether
questions
we
were
asking
was
really
necessary,
and
so
we
wanted
to
because
we
certainly
saw
feedback
on
Twitter
and
other
places
that
gosh.
This
is
a
lot
of
questions
and
it's
not
necessarily
going
to
be
a
flexible
project.
So
can
we
somehow
shorten
that
list
of
questions?
We're
asking
we'll
make
it
more
interactive
in
terms
of
like
if
we
discover
there's
something
we
probably
ought
to
know
in
the
application
process
scope
from
there?
B
And
so
the
idea
is
to
complete
it
and
hardly
ever
enjoy
a
family
and
in
incubating
capacity
as
they
complete
the
items
on
the
checklist
because
they're
quite
a
few
items
and
I'm
sure
we'll
think
of
others
as
we
go
and
then
once
they're
out
of
out
of
that
incubating
period,
because
all
of
the
items
are
checked
they're,
you
know
they're
fully
in
whatever
stage
they've
elected,
be
that
at
large
or
impact
or
whatever.
And
so
that's
the
that's
sort
of
some
of
the
finesse
that
we've
put
on
this.
We
did.
A
A
B
I'm
reading
Toby's
a
comments
of
a
few
hours
ago.
It
seems
that
they're
more
like
what's
the
word
I'm
looking
for
like
looking
for
more
detail
or
more
specificity,
you
know
convening
I'm,
not
reading
anything.
That
necessarily
seems
like
it
is
a
blocking
concern.
We
can
certainly
ask
them.
You
know
on
on
on
Twitter
or
something
here
shortly:
he's
yeah,
okay,.
F
B
Let
me
sing
to
you
while
I
look
for
the
comment.
We
did
talk
about
a
full
audit
of
dependencies
and
that,
like
the
original
language,
there
was
quite
you
know
quite
onerous,
and
we
decided
that
there's
probably
resources
within
the
foundation
or
within
the
LF
they
can
help
projects
collect
that
information
more
easily
than
just
requiring
them
to
give
it
to
us.
Do
that
together
we
needed
it
can
I
know
he's
talking
about
its.
B
B
J
B
Okay
and
yeah
I
think
we
should
be.
We
should
clarify
this
because
one
thing
I
know
that
we
will
want
as
part
of
our
one
of
our
requirements
and
the
impact
stage
is
that
the
projects
are
openly
governed
and
so
for
impact
projects.
It's
important
that
no
more
than
a
certain
percentage
of
and
I
don't
remember.
The
numbers
of
the
project
collaborators
are
from
a
certain
company
and
so
I
think
we're
the
the
spirit
of
that
need
comes
from,
and
so
perhaps
there's
a
easier
way
to
get
at
that
information.
F
B
You
know
that
kind
of
thing,
and
the
other
important
kind
of
thing
to
capture
here
is
that,
with
the
incubation
for
our
stage,
we
want
to
make
it
clear
that
at
any
point,
if
the
project
decides
or
if
the
foundation
decides
that
are
just
and
we're
discovering
more
about
how
we're
onboarding,
that
it's
not
a
fit
that
we
can,
we
can
part
ways
and
you
know
no
harm,
no
foul
it
just
you
know
that
it
just
didn't
work
out
that
integration
didn't
work
out.
So
that's
something
else.
A
A
B
I
One
of
the
benefits
that
I
see
of
if
we
were
to
participate
more
heavily
here
would
be
gaining
resources,
and
this
looks
like
a
resource
like
it
looks
like
it's
going
to
take
a
bunch
of
resources
just
to
get
fully
involved,
so
I
think
and
I.
Don't
know
if
that
blocks
it
from
moving
stages
because
I
don't
have
a
full
understanding
of
what
the
stages
mean
yet,
but
but
I
do
think
that
should
be
considered
before
you
go
and
evangelize
this
to
the
to
the
groups
and
the
different
projects.
I
think.
B
That's
a
really
good
point
and
part
of
why
we
were
asking
like,
should
we
run
our
existing
projects
through
this?
At
some
point,
we
do
need
to
make
sure
that,
to
your
point
West,
you
know
all
of
the
projects
are
on
the
same
footing
in
terms
of
like
policies,
and
you
know
up
to
date
on
infrastructure
and
that
kind
of
stuff
that
we're
providing
to
new
projects.
We
should
you
know
that,
should
all
be
everybody
should
be
on
an
equal
playing
field.
B
We
had
thought
that
perhaps
taking
our
existing
projects
through
the
onboarding
process
would
help
us
dog
food
it
a
bit
and
and
learn.
You
know
what
we
really
need
and
how
much
this
really
takes.
I
will
say
that
a
basically
concierge
for
the
open,
GS
foundation,
to
a
certain
extent,
I,
am
here
to
help
you
with
all
of
the
items
on
that
list,
and
you
know
I
think
that
is
an
Brian
Warner
as
well.
I'm,
sorry
I'm
volunteering
Brian
for
more
work
than
he
already
already
has,
but
we're
we're
here
to
help
with
this
project.
A
B
A
F
A
Great
so
moving
on,
then,
if
there
are
no
objections
to
moving
on
its,
we
only
have
about
15
minutes
I'd
like
to
get
into
PR
205
the
doc
clarifying
guidance
for
landing
PRS,
and
this
is
minoo.
This
is
something
we
need
to
work
out
in
particular,
because
there
was
a
few
regular
member.
Prs,
that's
were
merged
and
there
was
some
kind
of
offline
discussion
that
those
would
not
be
merged
until
the
next
meeting,
but
there
was
confusion.
It's
okay.
A
A
A
F
F
It
says
that
pull
requests
that
change
governance
of
the
CPC
in
addition
need
to
have
been
open
for
at
least
14
days
or
consensus
is
reached
in
a
meeting
with
quorum
of
the
voting
members,
and
the
longer
period
is
because
you
know
we
want
to
make
sure
that
anything
related
to
governance
as
many
of
the
CPC
members
as
possible
can
chime
in
and
potentially
object,
and
that's
why
it
extends
the
time.
And
but
it's
felt
that
you
know
if
we
have
enough
quorum
of
the
meeting
of
the
members
voting
members
in
a
meeting.
F
That's
also
good
enough
to
sort
of
make
sure
to
say
well,
yeah
we're
comfortable
that
it's
been
looked
at
enough.
There
are
any
objection
moving
forward
and
then,
finally,
of
course,
if
there's
change,
there's
a
pull
request
to
change
the
Charter,
that
requires
approval
of
the
board
and
then
it
also
clarifies
at
the
end
that,
if
consensus
cannot
be
reached
to
pull,
request
may
still
be
landed
after
a
vote
by
the
voting
CPC
members
to
override
an
outstanding
objections.
A
A
F
F
Know,
given
that
we've
merged
into
the
open,
GS
foundation,
there's
a
number
of
things
that
we
need
to
update
to
get
our
governance
for
the
node.js
project
in
line
with
being
part
of
foundation.
So
this
you
know
this
goes
through
the
note
tse
charter
and
you
know,
changes
things
like
you
know
the
the
node.js
foundation
open
J's
foundation
and
reflects
that
you
know
we're
part
of
the
foundation
which
has
a
number
of
projects,
as
opposed
to
a
single
single
foundation.
F
Have
quorum,
I
guess
it's!
You
know
following
the
consensus
seeking
process,
it
would
be
provided
that
we
believe
enough
for
the
CPC
members.
Unless
the
Charter
specifically
says
there
has
to
be
a
vote,
it
would
be
that
you
know
we're
confident
the
CPC
members
have
had
enough
time
to
review
and
that
there's
no
objections
and
that
we
have
at
least
you
know
some
CPC
members
who
have
over
proved
come.
F
Right
so
the
voting
members
are
responsible
for
proving
the
Charter
and
any
updates
or
projects
which
are
part
of
the
open.
Geospatial
is
part
of
this
review
approval.
The
voting
members
will
ensure
the
turn
updates
compatible
with
the
Machine
open
disk
foundation.
Every
consensus
with
the
board
on
substantive
financial
changes
being
fought
before
final
approval
by
the
CPC,
so
the
other
air
landing
guidance
says.
F
B
F
I
guess
my
first
take
would
be
that
we
use
consensus
seeking
across
the
board.
So
as
long
as
there's
we've
reached
consensus
among
the
CPC
members,
that's
what's
important.
Maybe
we
should
we
could
expand,
have
an
entry
that
says
that
actually
says
how
that
needs
to
be
how
those
need
to
be
approved,
like
specifically
like.
F
Pr
or
something
that
says
you
know
for
when
approving
charters
and
might
do
that
in
a
follow-on
prf
without
agreement,
but
like
that
now
changes
to
the
charters
or
projects
will
you
know
the
PR
needs
to
be
open
by
14
days?
If
we
think
that's
a
reasonable
time
and
then
have
you
know
at
least
two
CPC
member
voting
member
approvals
and
no
objections.
I.
F
F
A
A
A
A
A
Michael,
if
you
wouldn't
mind,
dropping
a
comment
in
there
and
then
we
can.
You
know
what
we
discuss
and
then
we
can
move
forward
mystic,
all
right
great.
Let's
see
we
have
six
minutes
left
start
accepting
nominations
for
regular
members
is
the
next
issue
issue
178
I,
see
seven
days
ago
we're
we're
talking
about
adding
something
to
governance.
I
think
this
is.
A
B
I
was
gonna,
say,
I
think
it'd
be
helpful,
for
somebody
will
volunteer
to
take
a
task
now
of
confirming
that
the
open,
PRS
regular
members
are
meet
the
criteria
that
we
just
agreed
upon
and
and
then
cleaning
up
any
merge
conflicts,
because
at
this
point
there's
probably
is
probably
gonna
be
a
little
messy.
They.
F
N
G
Susan
scope
for
for
this
point
in
the
meeting,
but
one
of
the
wording
around
the
definition
of
regular
members
was,
it
was
confusing
to
me.
It
says
to
have
been
a
member
of
the
project
for
three
months.
Does
that
mean
to
have
commit
access
to
the
repository,
or
is
there
some
other
definition
of
being
a
member
I.
B
B
G
I
think
living
it
in
that
vague
state
would
be
fine.
The
only
thing
I
would
maybe
want
is
that
there's,
maybe
some
post
acceptance
process
maybe
notify
the
project
lead
that
this
has
occurred,
even
if
they
weren't
like
required
to
react
that
at
least
they
have
some
way
of
finding
out
relatively
easily
I.
Don't
know
if
that
maybe
too
much
bureaucracy
but
I'm.
Just
thinking
for
the
kini
project
in
particular.
G
A
lot
of
us
don't
really
have
a
significant
amount
of
time
dedicated
to
it,
and
this
could
be
a
source
of
stress
it
like
people
can
nominate
them,
but
we're
not
really
sure
what's
happening
on
the
other
side
of
that,
and
that
way
we
could
maybe
had
the
benefit
of
both
of
it
being
both
flexible
and
accepted
by
default,
but
also
that
at
least
you
have
maybe
like
any
meal
somewhere
or
some
modification.
Like
you
know,
this
person
is
now
a
member
for
your
project.
I
think.
F
A
B
Well,
I
wouldn't
want
like
that
person
to
then
not
get.
You
know
like
P
Arden
because
say
they
tagged
somebody.
You
know,
for
example,
maybe
they're
helping
out
the
project
that,
like
Hospital,
run,
for
example,
which
is
sort
of
they're.
Very
you
know,
they're
not
active
in
the
CPC,
those
and
those
maintainer
czar
very
busy.
They
may
not
respond
to
that
for
for
a
while
and
I
would
hate
for
it.
F
E
Think
it's
just
a
good
way
to
notify
that,
just
as
long
as
there's
a
notification
right,
I
mean
I.
Think
if
there
were
to
be
some
weird
situation
where,
like
somebody
from
the
group,
wants
to
object
because
and
like
they
don't
have
a
hierarchy
or
like
really
heavy
governance
that
defines
member
you
know
through
election
or
nomination
or
whatnot
that
you're
at
least
getting
a
notification
from
you
know
to
someone
in
the
project
so
that
they
could
potentially
do
something
about
it.
E
If
they
had
a
concern
right,
yeah
I
think
that's
bare
minimum
without
saying
like
you
must
have
an
object.
You
know
you
must
approve,
because
even
if
the
person
gets
accepted
and
they
may
be
having
an
objection
that
can
be
worked
on,
you
know
behind
the
scenes
without
causing
some
weird
issue
publicly.
E
E
B
A
A
I
Well,
I'm
going
to
take
this
and
some
stuff
from
the
project:
maintenance,
working
group
and
present
it
to
the
express
Technical
Committee
this
afternoon.
I'd
invite
anybody
to
come.
We
don't
have
an
observer
role,
but
I
think
we
probably
should
so
maybe
I'll
bring
that
up
as
well.
But
if
anybody
has
any
input
and
wants
to
attend
I'll
post
a
link,
the
link
right
now.
So
that's
at
4:30
this
I'm
Pacific
time,
but
this
afternoon,
okay.
A
Great
well
thanks,
everyone
for
participating,
I
see
the
West
drop.
The
link
in
chat
there
for
folks
for
the
Express
meeting
later
today,
yeah
thanks
everyone
for
participating.
It
was
a
very
productive
meeting
and
please
check
out
some
of
these
issues
over
the
next
week
and
I
will
see
you
all
next
week.
Thank
you
later.