►
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
Live
in
and
is
our
very
busy
day,
we've
got
after
this
session,
the
collab
summits
planning
meeting
and
of
which
there
are
only
a
few
left
before
the
big
big
week,
big
week
of
JavaScript,
and
so
we
love
your
voice
there,
then
the
standards
team
meeting
is
after
that,
and
then
today
is
not
marketing.
Next
week
is
marketing
and
then
I
think
a
onboarding
for
project.
So
there's
lots
of
things
happening
and
again,
one
of
the
more
important
is
that
the
the
summits
coming
up.
So
please
do
make
sure
you
register
for
that.
A
Great,
oh
I,
see
so
join
me
as
well
know,
so
we
talked
last
week
and
I'm
sorry
last
week
feels
like
a
year
ago.
Are
we
gonna?
Do
the
agenda
this
week
or
we're
gonna
work
on
code
of
conduct
or
individual
membership
or
something
I
can't
remember,
I,
remember
talking
about
doing
something
this
week,
but
I
can't
wear
what
we
decided
and
I
looked
at
the
notes
and
I
didn't
see
anything
particular.
What
do
we
want
to
do
today?
I.
D
A
A
You're
welcome
great
yeah,
so
I
propose
we
we
touch
on
the
way
we
talk
about
the
amp
Charter
I
just
want
to
touch
on
the
chair
election
stuff,
good
cool,
all
right,
so
I'll
just
start
off
briefly
I
in
a
hack
MV
file
that
I
will
post
to
the
issue.
I
believe
the
issue
is
in
our
agenda.
So
if
anybody
wants
to
refer
to
it,
it's
the
CPC
chair
election
schedule
issue
it's
549.
A
Cool
and
I
will
paste
the
link
here.
If
folks,
wanna
take
a
look
nominations
for
the
next
week
and
then
at
next
week's
meeting
we
would
open
up
the
election.
So
along
those
lines,
should
people
nominate
in
this
issue
or
should
they
create?
Should
we
create
a
nominations
issue
or
should
people
nominate
in
their
own
issue?
What
do
people
think
we
should?
How
would
you
do
this
thanks
from
feelings,
I
think.
B
I
would
prefer
you
know,
having
seen
us
kind
of
go
through
elections
a
couple
of
times,
I.
Think
I
would
prefer
for
us
to
nominate
in
a
single
issue
and
invite
candidates
to
if
they
want.
You
know,
post
a
comment
about.
You
know
why
they're
running
or
something
of
that
sort
but
I
think
doing.
Multiple
issues
for
candidates
actually
makes
it
harder
to
discover
those
and
kind
of
clutters.
So,
but
my
preference
would
be
for
a
single
issue.
E
A
A
So
at
mention
CPC
and
update-
excuse
me
so
cool.
Should
we
get
into
the
amp
charter
now
move
on
cool
all
right?
Who
wants
to
take
the
lead
on
this
more.
E
C
Okay,
just
want
to
check
so
like
I
read
through
it
and
I
liked
the
content.
The
the
one
question
I
have
is
around
the
split
they're
sort
of
like
the
Charter
dock
and
say
that
both
the
Charter
and
the
governance
talk
needs
to
be
reviewed
and
approved
by
the
CPC.
Then
that's
good.
If
it's
you
know
just
the
Charter,
that's
gonna
be
reviewing
approved,
but
not
though
these.
E
You
know
on
one
side
the
Charter,
on
the
other,
the
actual
of
the
governing
the
description
of
the
governance
model,
and
we
also
have
an
open
issue,
they're
sort
of
discussing
asking
for
governance
that
MD
from
every
project.
C
You
do
make
a
good
point
in
terms
of
like
maybe
our
earlier
request
is
that
that
all
well-
maybe
maybe
they're
separate
but
I,
see
where
you're
coming
from
right,
like
in
in
in
the
node
split
the
gut.
The
Charter
has
basically
the
structure
and
then
we've
tried
to
move
out
things.
We
didn't
think
that
the
board
needed
to
have
an
opinion
on
like
how
long
it
takes
things
to
land,
and
you
know
how
many
reviewers
and
stuff
like
that
is.
C
What's
weak,
we've
got
in
our
governance,
so
the
split
is
almost
was
to
large
extent
around.
What
do
we
think
that
the
you
know
doesn't
need
that
review
and
so
we'll
go
for
the
heavier
weight
process
versus
what
could
the
TSC
Kham
Kham
do
on
their
own
and
that's
why
they
split.
You
know
that's
how
that
slit
was
built
so.
E
C
So
that's
where,
like
you
know,
when
I
read
through
it
I
almost
one
thought
I
even
had
is
like
what
you
have
in
the
governance.
Could
almost
be
your
charter
weight
so
and
I,
don't
think
like
from
from
our
perspective
and
maybe
I'm
wrong
on
this
as
I
think
through
it
a
little
bit
like
there
is
some
value
to
having
like
common
naming
of
things,
but.
C
E
Mean
just
to
be
clear,
like
I,
don't
we
see
it
as
a
problem
to
get
approval
from
the
Ts
see
to
get
changes
through
governance
reviewed
by
the
CPC,
especially
if
we
know
that
that's
a
process
that
takes
two
week
and
that
is
handled
through
you
know,
there's
a
simple
process
to
go
through
that
I
I.
Don't
think
that.
C
Think
that
goes
back
to
Toby's
comment
that
we're
getting
into
a
little
bit
of
an
uncertain
like
we
don't
want
that
to
apply
to
the
CPC
governance
and
charter,
for
example,
because
we've
explicitly
split
it
out
so
that
the
Charter
requires,
for
example,
board
review,
but
the
CPC
governments
doesn't
and
and
probably
similarly
for
node.
We
have
a
charter
that
has
the
bits
which
we
would
have
the
CPC
review
in
the
Charter
and
the
bits
that
don't
you
know
to
be
clearance.
Yeah.
A
E
E
In
that
case,
I
wanted
I
want
I
want
to
be
I
want.
I
would
like
more
specificity
from
the
CPC
to
know
what
documents
exactly
that
ties
in
do
there
are
a
month,
there's
a
governance,
but
there's
also
that
the
design
guidelines
of
the
project
I
also
I'm,
also
curious
about
whether
that
would
point
to
into
this
and
not
just
to
see
how
big
of
a
sort
of
dependency
tree
no.
C
Iii
think
it's
strictly.
What's
in
the
governance?
Talk
because
it's
it's
where
you've
defined
what
the
governing
body
is
for
the
project.
It
is
right
and
that
and
that's
so
it's
like
your
design
guide
guidelines.
Are
you
know,
I
I,
wouldn't
see
being
part
of
that
the
you
know
how
you
arranged:
github,
repos,
none
of
that
none
of
that
is
covered,
it's
more
like
how
is
the
project
itself
governed
and
how
do
people
get
into
that
governance
right?
So,
for
example,
you
know
it's
that
you
know.
C
You're
using
a
consensus
seeking
module
on
consist
consents
the
seeking
approach.
You
have
a
TFC
which
is
made
up
from
people.
You
know
this
group
of
people,
they
are
elected
like
this.
Those
are
the
things
that
you
know,
I
think
the
we
want
to
you
know.
The
review
is
intended
to
make
sure
it's
compatible
with
the
foundation
and
stays
compatible
right
right.
E
So
I
agree:
Oh
was
this
and
my
impression
was
this
was
typically
what
would
belong
in
a
governance
that
MD
file,
so
you
know
I
I
think
we
can
move
ahead
with
this.
I
do
think
that
in
the
future
we
should
probably
redefine
what
the
CPC
needs
to
look
like
you
look
at
in
terms
of
what
you
described
here
like
actual
governance
structure,
rather
than
just
like
files,
yeah.
C
I
think
that
makes
sense,
or
even
like
you
know,
like
we
want
the
yeah,
so
I
think
that
that
makes
sense
to
refine
but
going
forward
like
in
terms
of
not
blocking
apps
progression.
My
suggestion
was
like
add
that
one
sentence
we
can
move
forward
and
you
know.
C
F
D
F
I
mean
something
like
that
is
entirely
doable,
just,
for
example,
by
copying
the
file,
because
these
are
not
things
that
are
not
gonna
change
at
any
sort
of
frequency.
But
if
we
are
expected
out-
and
the
answer
might
well
be-
that
no-
this
doesn't
make
sense-
I
don't
have
an
opinion
on
this,
but
I
just
realized.
It's
a
thing
to
figure
out.
G
A
I
think
that
the
next
steps
for
amp
is
to
add
a
sentence
or
two
to
clarify
what
would
be
under
review
for
CPC
in
terms
of
file
changes.
What
what
files,
if
they're
changed,
would
need
review
specific
files,
more
clarity
and
what
those
files
mean
and
then
we're
also
diving
into
some
process
related
to.
You
know,
I
think,
perhaps
managing
being
aware
of
file
changes
which
I
wonder
about
like
a
github
action,
or
something
that
maybe
we
having
a
mole
file
that
lists
the
files
that
would
be
under
our
review
and
when
they
are
changed.
A
C
C
C
D
E
E
A
That's
a
good
question:
I
think
that
we
should,
you
know,
make
these
updates
and
then
paying
the
group,
perhaps
in
github,
but
I,
think
also
in
an
email
and
let
them
know
the
two
weeks
has
expired,
and
we
need
to
move
forward
on
this
in
terms
of
next
steps.
What
what's
what
would
be
next
and
as
far
as
the
onboarding
goes?
Oh
so.
E
E
E
A
C
E
E
A
C
For
CP
started
unless
anybody
else
file-
oh
you
know
anybody
else
wants
to.
Yes,
please
so
what
you
know,
I
think,
there's
turnover
over
having
that
escalation
path
and
there's
a
CPC.
We
need
to
either
reconfirm
that
it
makes
sense
or
decide
that
no
have
any
stake
in
put
responsibility
whatever
whatever
the
right
words
are.
C
In
terms
of
you
know,
a
code
of
conduct
and
the
project
we've
said
that
there's
a
requirement
to
have
one,
but
if
we
leave
it
strictly,
as
you
must
have
one
and
there's
people
to
complain
about
that
and
and
a
process
that
people
and
identified
people
who
would
then
say,
okay,
we're
we
are
the
people
who
were
entrusted
to
figure
out
whether
that's
okay
to
continue
or
we
have
to
do
something.
Or
you
know
in
the
worst
case,
the
foundation
has
to
say
sorry.
C
This
project
is
no
longer
compatible
with
our
foundation
or
the
other
end,
and
that
requires
an
escalation
path,
at
least
in
my
mind,
or
on
the
other
side
we
couldn't.
We
could
take
the
post.
That
says
no,
that's
strictly
a
project
responsibility
right
like
so.
For
example,
if
somebody
complained
about
the
github
structure,
their
project
uses
for
their
technical
project,
we
wouldn't
we
would
have
you
know
the
way
we've
established
things.
We
would
not
get
involved
in
that
kind
of
discussion
anyway,
and
we
could
choose.
C
We
would
just
say
no,
let's
approach
responsibility
go
back
to
project,
and
so
we
could
treat
in
that
with
the
concerns
over
having
an
escalation
path
like
it's,
you
know,
you're,
basically
trusting
another
group
to
to
make
a
decision
which
is
potentially
incompatible
with
what
your
projects
decided
and
and
I.
Think,
though,
there's
concerns
that
that
could
go
either
way
right
like
there's
concerns,
it
says:
well,
wait
a
sec
you
if,
if
you
know,
there's
been
some
conduct
in
our
project-
and
you
know
we
decide
that
wasn't
acceptable
and
then
they
can
complain
about
that.
C
To
some
other
group.
That's
not
right.
Similarly,
though
you
could
you
can
see
the
case
where
it's
like
you
know,
there's
been
some
conduct
and
that
the
project
has
agreed
that
it's
okay,
I
mean
I
have
is
like.
We
either
are
sort
of
like
completely
hands-off,
or
at
least
in
my
opinion,
we
need
some
sort
of
escalation
process
and
I
guess.
The
one
thing
I
hadn't
mentioned
is
there's
also
the
as
a
separate
dimension,
because
that
still
hands-off
in
terms
of
the
final
decision-making
right,
yeah.
A
That's
still
hands-off
I
think
that
that
should
be
available
to
projects
for
sure
I.
Think.
Another
kind
of
aspect
to
this
is
the
angle:
to
connect
the
dots
at
the
level
above
in
the
COC
panel
and
and
identify.
Perhaps
you
know
someone
who
was
problematic
in
our
foundation
and
we're
all
not
enough
I.
Think.
H
C
A
path
for
somebody
to
say,
I
was
not
comfortable
with
this
decision,
and
you
know
the
the
makeup
of
the
CPC
was
intent
or
the
COC
PCP
code
of
conduct
panel
was
intended
to
be
represent.
The
projects
across
the
foundation,
including
you
know,
Robin
as
somebody
from
the
you
know,
foundation
organization,
representatives
from
the
impact
knowledge
in
this
area,
to
hope
that
that
part
that
that
panel
could
come
up
with
the
right
answer
and
I.
Think
it.
C
Wouldn't
you
know,
I
I,
don't
see
that
that
panel
has
ever
just
gonna,
go
back
to
the
project
and
say
no,
we've
overruled
you
right,
there's
the
if
it
was
a
case
where
they
looked
at
it
and
said
we
really
don't
think
that's
the
right
decision
that
the
project
made
I
think
they
would
have
to
go
back
to
the
project,
have
a
long
discussion
and,
depending
on
the
severity
you
know,
then
it
just
gets
it's
a
very
hard.
It's
a
very
hard
problem.
D
D
Yeah,
like
you,
don't
think,
that's
like
likely
gonna
happen,
or
there
was
specific
raising
there
like
the
uncertainty.
There
is
why
I
raise
this,
because,
as
a
project
like
the
CPC
could
come
and
tell
no,
no,
you
have
to
go
unbanned.
This
person
who's
like
an
alright
troll
I
doubt
that
would
happen
but
like
that
is
a
thing
that
could
happen
and
that
isn't
something
that
I
think
we
should
be
able
in
projects
to
of
like
in
this
undefined
gray
area
of
how
this
thing
works,
and
this
kind
of
all
stems
from.
D
We
don't
have
this
defined
and
until
it's
defined
it's
a
relatively
volatile
and
potentially
highly
impactful
thing
that
could
go
wrong
and
I
I
guess
I
would
very
my
my
kind
of
hope
here
is
that
we
can
go
through
and
actually
very
specifically
define
what
this
thing
is
and
how
its
implemented
and
how
it
affects
projects.
So
projects
can
know
what
to
expect.
Do
not
have
a
gray
area
of
like
you
know
they
could
do
this
or
they
think
they.
You
know
they
can't
do.
A
One
one
thing:
I
think
that
we
discussed
gosh
it
feels
like
forever
ago,
but
one
of
the
collaborator
summits
where
we
really
got
into
this.
It's
perhaps
instead
of
mandating
the
COC
panel,
mandating
that
someone
be
banned
from
a
project
that
it
could
be
like
advisory
or
suggestive.
You
know,
I,
don't
know
if
that's
a
good
solution,
but
yes.
C
C
The
project
handles
that,
like
the
you
know,
it's
written
so
that
the
project
is
always
the
first
point
of
entry.
If
the
project
you
know
so
the
project
goes
through
the
process,
it
makes
a
decision
if
the
reporter
or
or
the
report,
II
I
guess
you
know
fundamentally
disagrees
with
the
outcome.
Then
there
is
an
email
to
which
they
can
send.
You
know
they
can
basically
escalate
and
say
we
don't
agree
with
the
outcome.
C
You
know
I
I
and
then
the
COC
P
comes
in,
discusses
and
will
need
to
come
with.
You
know.
Do
we
think
that
was
a
reason
or
do
you
know?
Does
that
panel
think
that
the
outcome
was
reasonable?
Yes,
then,
in
which
case
it's
like
sorry,
you
know
we've
looked
at
it,
we
agree.
If
it's
you
know,
I
think
it
would
need
to
be
an
exceptional
case
like
I.
Don't
think
it's
like
hey.
C
You
were
ten
percent
off
that
the
co
PC
OCP
would
ever
go
back
and
say
no
we're
gonna
overrule
that
right,
like
I,
think
it
would
have
to
be
a
case
where
it
was
a
significant
or
or
a
Sarah
mentioned
before
you
know.
Maybe
this
is
the
tenth
report
from
the
project,
so
that
there's
something
which
is
you
know,
means
that
they
really
believe
they
need
to
act
in
that
particular
case
before
they
would
go
back
and
say
you
know
No,
you
know
this
just
can't
stay
the
way.
It
is
right.
C
H
Thing
is,
it
sounds
like
you're
describing
two
different
things.
One
sounds
almost
like
a
Supreme
Court
case
scenario,
right
where
there
is
a
someone
that
wants
to
take
an
appeals
process
all
the
way
to
the
top
and
another
one
is
a
one
of
a
more
alignment
call
right
of,
and
it
seems
like
one
thing:
I've
seen
go
really
poorly
in
the
past.
H
Is
these
things
get
invented
as
issues
come
up
right,
so
there's
a
project
that
egregiously
ignores
a
co,
C
violation
or
something
like
that,
and
so
the
rules
get
invented
as
they
go,
and
people
really
don't
like
that.
So
I
guess
I
would
ask
if
it's
prioritizing
one
of
the
two
or
figure
out
one
of
the
two.
What
is
this?
What
what
do
you
think
is
I,
don't
know
if
this
is
helpful.
H
C
Came
out
specifically
from
the
node
project,
where
you
know
that
there
were
some
some
reports
there
was.
It
was
quite
painful
for
the
project.
People,
one
of
the
things
they
specifically
called
out
is
that
there
was
no.
There
was
no
way
to
you
know
the
the
TSE
made
a
decision.
There
was
no
path
to
to
to
engage
the
foundation
or
any
other
body
to
get
to
sort
of
continue.
So
I
think
you
know
more.
C
G
You
know
it's
hard
not
to
look
at
these
issues
through
experience
right
and,
in
my
experience,
being
a
woman
in
tech
and
open
source
for
so
long.
I
absolutely
do
thinking
an
escalation
path,
or
you
know
you
need
the
policy
set
right
up,
but
there
could
be
a
number
of
reasons.
Maybe
the
person
is
not
comfortable,
maybe
the
per
you
know.
Maybe
the
project
wants
to
protect
an
important
contributor.
C
C
It's
it's
not
good
to
have
like
totally
undefined,
but
today,
if
we
were
faced
one
of
these
situations,
even
without
an
escalation
path,
somebody
might
come
to
Robin
or
she
might
come
to
to
Joe
as
head
of
the
CQC
and
say
hey
this
project,
what
this
project
is
doing
is
just
not
right.
We
would
then
have
to
scramble
even
to
figure
out
who
the
group
would
be.
Who
would
talk
about
that
right?
So
this?
C
This
is
what
we've
written
is
just
that
very
first
step
that
says:
if
somebody
wants
to
report,
something
who
would
it
go
to
and
we've
defined
where
the
lead
of
our
you
know
the
exactly
they're,
a
good,
a
group,
that's
gonna
be
able
to
help
move
us
in
the
right
direction
and
I.
That's
why
I
say
like
I
can't
imagine
that
group.
But
what
if
this
does
happen?
We've
got
the
wrong
set
of
people,
just
saying
no
you're
wrong.
You
have
to
change.
D
I
guess
what
I'm,
documented
and
I
I
am
for
what
it's
worth
I'm,
not
again
having
this
escalation
path,
I
am
for
having
it
very
articulately
and
precisely
defined.
So
everyone
knows
what's
gonna
be
happening,
and
so
there
are
no
questions
and
there
is
no
questioning
of
how
we
do
this.
Or
did
we
implement
this
right
or
anything
like
that,
and
we
can
very
precisely
point
to
the
things
that
this
will
be
doing
to
help
enable
the
projects
and
create
a
safe
community
for
all
of
us.
Yeah.
A
B
C
Go
ahead,
Michael.
My
suggestion
really
is:
like
I've
taken
my
cut
it
trying
to
write
that
down.
You
know,
Tierney
I,
think
if
you
see
that
there's
gaps,
if
you
could
start
PR
in
things
that
you
think
should
be
clarified,
that
would
be
a
help
along
along
with
anybody
else
who
goes
and
reads
those
doc
and
says:
oh
well,
this
part
really
should
be
clear,
a
few
more
suggestions
that
might
get
me
thinking,
but
also
get
us
some
specific
changes.
That
pointed
in
the
right
direction
and
I
guess:
that's.
D
It's
an
issue
that
could
have
contact
repo
that
I
created
about
this
I
didn't
add
to
label
because
it
wasn't.
There
wasn't
the
label
in
the
repo.
A
C
D
I
Sounds
almost
if
there
needs
to
be
explicit
definition
for
categories
of
escalation.
You
know,
like
you
kind
of
have
a
few
different
paths
of
things
here.
You
have
if
project
you
know,
project,
doing
repeat
offenses.
If
you
will
that
don't
align
with
the
you
know
what
the
CPC
is
trying
to
accomplish,
and
then
you
have
repeat
individual
offenders
who
you
know
like
the
they
have
a
better
grasp
of
what
we
mean
by
escalation
in
reference
to
those
things.
C
A
C
A
I
I
just
wanted
to
say:
maybe
it
would
be
worth
in
the
you
know,
a
code
of
conduct,
discussions,
bringing
you
know,
representatives
from
other
groups
who
are
associated
in
with
us.
If
we
can
to
discuss
those
kind
of
things,
because
you
know
like
what
you're
gonna
get
to
you
is
is
there?
Is
there
I
mean?
Is
there
a
definition
for,
like
a
you
know,
for
punishments?
I
You
know
for
projects
and
stuff
like
that
anyway,
to
have
that
stuff
like
clearly
understood
across
every
project
as
much
as
possible
before
I,
even
get
to
like
leaving
that
being
ambiguous.
You
know
yeah,
if
that's
gonna
happen.
So
I
just
worked.
You
know
like,
hopefully
a
lot
of
you
know.
Code
of
conduct
influencers
within
these
projects
can
join
in
that
discussion
because
we
just
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
day,
we
want
to
let
those
projects
be
empowered
to
handle
this
themselves
because
they
are
conscious
of
and.
C
Wit,
sir
I,
just
one
that
is
certainly
I,
think
this
this
escalation
path
should
do
the
minimum
to
achieve
what's
needed,
like
kind
of
like
the
you
know,
we've
agreed
that,
like
at
least
as
the
MVP,
you
know,
because
a
lot
of
the
other
suggestions
that
have
been
made
can
become
a
much
more
divisive
discussion
like
you
know.
If
the
panel
starts
to
do
thing
on
its
own,
without
even
have
a
discussion
and
and
I
think
anyway
than
having
it
look
at
it
at
a
specific
complaint
that
was
made
to
one
project,
yeah
I'm,.
A
A
Yeah
we
gotta
record
some
but
I,
think
I
I
agree
with
you
and
I
think
that
we
need
to
break
down
and
digestible
chunks,
MVPs
and-
and
you
know,
make
some
decisions
on
some
things
document
them
before
and
we'll
continue
working
on
that
and
we
can
figure
out
what
we're
going
to
do
next
meeting
another
time.
But
I
think
we
should
drop
into
the
private
session
and
just
get
caught
up
on
some
of
the
application
stuff.