►
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
B
Great,
alright,
that's
fired
up
alright
great
welcome
to
another
episode
of
the
open,
J's
foundations.
Cross-Project
council
meeting
today
is
the
26th
of
May
and
we're
working
through
some
meeting
hiccups
here,
but
follow
along
on
the
YouTube
stream
or
get
into
the
zoom
from
the
calendar
link,
and
we
are
working
out
our
list
of
agenda
items
we'll
go
through
the
cross
project
council's
agenda
items.
First,
when
we
get
to
agenda
items
and
then
see
whatever
else
we
may
org,
but
to
get
things
started.
Do
we
have
any
announcements
and.
A
As
usual,
I'm
going
to
put
out
my
reminder
call
to
the
community
for
sessions
for
collab
summit.
That
is
like,
oh,
my
gosh.
It's
under
a
month
away
holy
mackerel,
that's
so
exciting,
I
think
we're
gonna
have
a
wonderful
conference
and
a
wonderful
you
know
set
of
days
for
discussing
all
kinds
of
things
across
all
of
our
projects,
but
obviously
it's
made
better
by
all
of
you
and
your
ideas
and
your
your
thoughts
and
stuff.
A
B
Just
add
to
that
the
the
Monday
of
the
collapse.
It
is
like
oriented
towards
new
contributors,
and
then
we
also
have
a
focus
on
like
stuff
that
we
can
collaborate.
Collaborate
on
that
is
cross
project
things
that
might
help
other
projects
that
could
be
valuable,
so
keep
that
stuff
at
9:00
awesome
anything
else,
anything
from
the
from
the
board.
That
was
that
on
Friday
that
the
meeting
happened
it
was
and
I'm
trying
to
think.
C
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
really
to
bring
back
with
us.
There
was.
There
was
more
discussion
about
the
crowdfunding
guidelines
and
there's
some
progress
on
that,
but
there
still
needs
to
be
so.
We
saw
something
more
concrete,
but
it
still
needs
to
go
through
in
a
couple
more
steps
before
it's
shared
continuing
to
kind
of
push
on
that
to
get
something
out
as
soon
as
we
can.
Thank
you.
B
B
C
D
B
All
right
cool,
so,
let's,
let's
get
into
the
agenda
items
and
if
folks
can
help
me
remember,
there
were
I
think
two
things
and
the
issues
that
we
wanted
to
touch
on
as
well.
If
we
have
time
the
project
charter,
review
of
amped,
well,
I
guess
that's
in
our
agenda
because
it
wasn't
created
by
oh,
no,
it's
that
was
seven
days
ago,
something
I.
B
Great
great
all
right,
cool
I
will
drop
that
into
the
chat
here
for
folks
and
then
the
other.
Let's
see
so
one
thing
that
is
not
on
here,
because
I
don't
think
it
has
the
agenda,
but
Sara
asked
if
we
could
just
take
a
look
at
it
is
the
its
individual
individual
membership.
What
are
the
goals
issue
553?
So
if
we
have
time
we'll
get
to
that
as
well
cool
all
right,
so
jumping
into
the
agenda
items
from
this
new
issue-
and
let
me
see
if
I
can
I'm
gonna
actually
pull.
B
B
E
We're
getting
close
to
being
ready
to
completely
boarding
as
such
one
of
the
things
that
needs
to
happen
this
for
the
CPC
to
check
out
charter
and
approve
it,
and
so
that
sort
of,
like
the
that's
the
purpose
of
that
step,
really
there's
a
few
items
that
are
still
oh.
You
know
it
still
need
to
be
completed
and
cleared,
but
we're
hopeful
that
we're
gonna
get
there
on
time
to
finish
on
warning
and
during
open
chest
world
you
know
and
so
yeah.
So
that's
so
that's
really
what
we're
at
great.
B
E
Absolutely
so
one
of
the
quick
things
they
can
say
about
it
is
we
had
a
fairly
I
mean,
am
had
a
fairly
complete
governance
that
MD
document
before
that,
and
already
some
design
design
guides
and
like
a
number
of
things
that
supposed
to
be
in
the
Charter,
and
so
we
decided
to
essentially
point
to
those
from
the
Trotters.
So
the
Charter
is
a
lot
of
it.
There's
a
lot
of
pointing,
and
it
is.
B
B
C
That's
exactly
where
I
was
going
is
the
only
complication
I
could
see
is
if
something.
If
the
Charter
changes
substantially,
then
it
needs
a
CPC
review
and
I.
Don't
know
I,
guess
you
know
it
if
the
things
that
refers
to
aren't
things
that
are
being
sort
of
captured
in
the
Charter
itself,
but
support
the
Charter,
then
I
don't
see
any
issue.
If
they're,
like
you,
know,
here's
our
our
whole
governance
thing
is
over
here,
then
maybe
they
would
have
to
have
be
subject
to
review
when
the
Charter
like.
B
B
A
A
Just
gonna
say
I
want
to
just
recap
and
restate
cuz.
We
haven't
done
to
too
many
of
these
and
that
you
know
the
processes
we
either
get
more
than
50%
of
the
voting
CPC
members
to
+1
the
Charter
or,
if
there's
after
14
days.
If
there's
been
no
comment
or
further
discussion,
that
is
automatically
approved,
correct.
A
C
So
generally
it's
written
to
be
people
have
enough
time
and-
and
you
know,
for
things
that
are
more
important,
there's
slightly
longer
time,
verses,
other
things
so
I,
I,
I'm,
pretty
sure.
Unless
you
have
quorum
in
a
meeting.
That's
the
one
override!
That's
in
the
governance.
It
would
be
like
wait
14
days
and
then
it
can
land.
E
B
C
B
B
B
B
C
C
Do
I
actually
put
that
in
there
I
didn't,
but
I'd
like
that.
Pro
proposed
that
now
we
have
one
two,
three,
four,
five,
six,
seven,
eight
nine
people
who
first
ones
no
objections
so
I'd
propose.
We
consider
that
approved
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
anything
in
terms
of
the
staging
process,
how
long
things
have
to
stay
open.
Let
me
take
a
quick
look:
yeah.
F
So
this
is
just
for
changing
the
the
stage
from
zero
to
one
correct,
correct,
yeah
and
as
far
as
the
staging
process
is
concerned,
as
well
going
to
one
basically
just
means
that
we're
open
to
exploring
and
working
on
this
so
I,
don't
think.
There's
really
need
for
anything
more
explicit
and
what
we've
got
at
the
moment.
Yeah.
B
B
C
Do
we
have
any
feedback
on
what
people
would
prefer
like
I'm
happy
if
they
went
directly
to
regular
members,
but
if
we
think
that
people
won't
want
that,
you
know
it's
basically.
Do
they
go
directly
to
regular
members
and
have
to
then
say:
oh
no
I
don't
want
to,
or
do
they
go
to
non-members
and
then
have
to
say,
hey
I
want
to
be
a
member.
G
E
G
Know
take
them
off
the
list
by
default.
The
harm
there
is
that
they
then
feel
excluded
and
kicked
out,
and
then
they
have
to
say.
Oh
no,
please
include
me,
and
that
is
a
much
bigger
barrier
for
people
to
overcome.
So
for
me,
it
feels
a
more
inclusive
approach
to
keep
them
as
regular
members,
unless
you
know,
even
if
we
have
proactively
asked
them
if
they
want
to
stay
that
way,
it's
fine
to
ping
them
and
be
like
we're,
making
even
make
it
a
regular
member.
C
Yeah
and
as
voting
members
I'm
hoping
that
most
of
the
time
they've
been
more
than
active
enough
to
be
a
regular
member,
so
III
mother,
the
same
you
know
that's
what
I
was
asking
if
there's
any
like,
if
people
were
saying,
no,
no
I
don't
want
to
go
I,
don't
want
that
to
automatically
happen.
I
might
change
my
opinion,
but
my
default
one
would
be
yeah.
Let's
just
move
them
to
regular
members
and
people
can
ask
that
dropped
out
if
and
when
they
think
that
makes
sense.
C
B
I'll
just
say
because
I
said
than
the
issue
that
I
originally
argued
against
it
partially
from
the
standpoint
of
having
some
voting
members
who
aren't
particularly
active
and
thinking.
That's
a
pull
request.
To
just
add
yourself
to
the
lists:
isn't
a
huge
hurdle.
That
being
said,
I
agree
with
Jordan
I.
Think
inclusive
by
default
is
a
better
approach
and
I
think.
B
C
C
G
C
B
I
C
B
D
B
E
C
C
B
B
This
is
individual
membership.
What
are
the
goals
and
in
her
description
here,
it
says
this
is
a
continuation
of
continuation
of
issue.
Five
five
one.
Please
share
your
answer
to
the
following
questions.
In
order
to
ensure
a
shared
understanding
of
the
membership
program,
question
number
one:
what
do
you
see
is
the
top
three
goals
of
the
program
number
two:
what
are
three
non
goals?
This
program
should
avoid
and
number
three
what
who
should
I
contact
specifically
if
anyone
to
ensure
all
the
needs
of
this
program,
it's
addressing
our
accounted
for
Dave.
C
A
C
So
I
was
just
wondering
like:
should
we
could
we
would
it
make
any
sense
to
spend
ten
minutes
on
this
one?
You
know
what
are
the?
What
are
the
three
top
things,
or
do
we
just
want
to
leave
that
to
github?
Just
since
it
sounds
seems
like
we
have
a
bit
of
time
and
then
the
other
one
you
know
I
was
I
could
get
10
minutes
for
the
other
issue.
That
would
be
good.
B
C
A
B
That
sounds
forget
me,
can
I
ask
and-
and
you
know
we
can
punt
on
this
as
well,
but
since
we've
done
some
code
of
conduct
process
working
sessions,
is
there
any
progress
on
that
or
anything
that
we
should
be
focused?
You
know
we
could
discuss
now
or
just
encourage
folks
to
take
a
look
at
in
their
free
time.
So
my
topic.
A
Other
than
just
the
summary
from
our
last
discussion,
which
was
last
week,
there
have
been
no
further
comments
on
the
PR
on
the
Code
of
Conduct.
Repo
with
this
is
the
one
that
describes
more
specifically
how
we
want
to
direct
projects
to
it
and
referred
to
the
Code
of
Conduct,
so
I
would
I
would
love
to
be
able
to
merge
this
and
move
on.
A
B
H
B
I
think
just
out
of
our
discussion,
the
having
it
in
the
docket
hub
repo
is
great
from
from
an
organization's
perspective,
but
from
like
a
consumers
perspective,
most
people
I
think,
would
look
for
a
code
of
conduct
file
in
the
repository
and
then
also
when
you
fork
a
repo
that
COC
doesn't
kind
of
come
along
with
that
necessarily
I.
Guess.
H
B
A
What
I
want
it
like
really
make
sure
that
we're
getting
to
here
is
like
if
there
are
gonna
be
requirements.
You
know
for
how
something
is
surfaced
that
that's
that's
in
here
and
so
we've
got
all
kinds
of
different
ideas
and
thoughts
about
you
know.
You
know
lots
of
different
ways.
This
could
be
consumed,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
you
know
I
think
we
should
figure
out
what
it
is
that
we
actually
require,
and
then
the
rest
of
it
genuinely
is
left
up
to
the
project.
I.
H
I
guess
I
can
kind
of
speak
to
what
Joey
is
saying
from
like
my
working
on
trying
to
get
electron
through.
One
of
the
things
I
found
is
like
I
end
up
having
to
reach
out
and
ask
questions
of
like
what.
What
do
you
mean
when
things
are
not
well
defined
and
like
having
multiple
options?
It's
totally
cool
like
having
just
a
link
in
me,
treating
me
or
or
having
you
know,
a
distinct
codified
file
that
points
back
but
like
having
options
really
helps
reduce
the
friction.
B
Yeah
yeah
I
think
that
that
sentence,
maybe
could
just
be
added
to
say,
like
using
one
of
the
following
methods,
so
that
it's
clear,
because
if
you
just
put
out
two
options-
and
it's
not
clear
that
we
would
like
one
of
these
two
options
to
be
done,
then
then
that's
really
left
up.
You
know
kind
of
the
Chaney's
point
a
little
more
open.
C
B
H
Would
have
reduced
the
friction,
I,
don't
essentially
better,
but
it
would
have
reduced
the
friction
for
me
to
get
get
the
work
done
and
like
have
less
back-and-forth
with
foundation.
Folks
on
and
they're,
not
just
foundation
folks,
but
like
people
in
the
CPC
and
if
activation
and
all
that,
like
I,
would
have
had
to
do
less
work
there.
That
make
sense.
Just
that's
just
a
broad
thing
for
everything.
This
is
one
example
yeah.
A
No
objections,
I,
just
Ann,
would
want
to
be
clear
that
if
a
project
says
oh
okay,
well,
this
we're
gonna
go
with
option
three
which
isn't
listed
here.
It's
this
other
way
of
doing
it,
that
the
code
of
conduct
team
and
is
responsible
for
ensuring
that
that
meets
the
CPC
requirements
and
so
on.
Not
not
I,
don't
want
to
see
that
end
up
being
like
another,
very
long,
yeah
I
mean
I'm.
B
C
B
I,
don't
I,
don't
think
it
needs
to
be
like
inflexible,
but
I
think
you
know
like
what
Jory
and
Tierney
are
saying.
It
would
be
good
if
there
was
guidance
and
if
not
guidance,
but
requirements
and
options.
But
if
it's
something
else,
then
just
let
us
know
so
we're
not
like
tracking
things
down
and
I.
Think.
J
I
would
feel
that
in
general
we
should
say
like
here
the
defaults
we
prefer,
but
that
general
statements
somewhere.
That
says
if
you
need
to
deviate
from
the
suggestion
and
PR
it
that
way.
We're
not
like
identifying
that
saying
that,
over
and
over
again
throughout
the
document,
because
I
would
be
tedious,
saying
it.
A
Also
makes
it
a
lot
harder
for
for
us
as
staff.
To
like
say
yes,
you
know:
we've
we've
checked
this
box
with
this
project,
so
we
can
proceed
to
the
next
thing
for
something
you
know
like
onboarding,
and
this
is,
you
know
really
important
to
us.
Obviously
we
want
to
make
make
progress
and
be
able
to
communicate
very
clearly
to
projects
that
you
know
that
we've
met
that
I.
Think.
C
A
B
C
Well,
you
know,
Tierney
was
just
asking
about
some
of
the
requirements
of
escalation
and
I
thought
it
would
be
worth
spending
a
little
bit
of
time.
I,
don't
think
we'll
cover
it
in
ten
minutes,
but
I
mean
fundamentally
I
think
we
need
to
decide
as
a
CPC
if
there
is
going
to
be
an
escalation
process
or
not.
C
Currently
it's
written
up
that
there
is.
It
seems
that
there's
some
concerns,
confusion
whatever
and
you
know
so-
maybe
not
general
agreement
that
we
actually
want
to.
Have
that
be
the
case,
and
you
know
so
I
think
little
bit
of
discussion
and
then
you
know
we
can
take
it
back
to
the
github
tracker.
But
my
take
is
that
you
know
it's
gonna
be
very
hard
to
be
somewhere
in
between
I
think
it's
either.
You
know
the
the
CPC
slash
Foundation
has
some
responsibility.
B
H
B
A
H
I
I
think
it
is
because
basically
you're
telling
projects
implement
this.
This
thing
that,
like
could
potentially
invalidate
your
code
of
conduct
and
it
like
your
decisions
which
to
me
both
from
you
know
from
any
part
of
Thai
I
participate
in
that's
super.
Concerning
of
like
cool
no,
the
foundation
just
says
you
have
to
let
this
person
back
into
your
project
despite
them,
having
like
your
processes
having
violated
this.
H
C
C
That's
fine
they're
just
another
project,
and
and
in
my
mind
you
can't
really
you
get
you
can't
have
it
both
ways
like
you
either
have
to
say
yes,
we're
concerned
about
this,
and
so
we
can
complain
and
have
an
escalation
or
you
say:
well,
no,
that's
you
know
what
other
projects
do
they
could
do
whatever
they
want
has
nothing
to
do
with
art.
You
know
the
other
projects
concerns
something.
G
Else,
that's
sort
of
related
is
that,
let's
say
there's
a
repeat
offender
that
gets
banned
from
one
Foundation
project
and
then
hops
to
another
one
and
then
another
one
and
then
another
one.
At
some
point
it
is
our
failure,
and
that
point
I
would
argue,
is
when
it's
happened
to
a
third
project
at
the
soonest
or
you
know,
and
but
not
before.
It's
like
it's
too
late
by
then,
but
like
it's
there's
a
there's,
a
balance.
We
have
to
strike
between
project
autonomy
and
not
letting
scamper
around
under
our
umbrella.
I
think.
F
Right
projects
have
explicitly
expressed
that
they
do
not
want
to
be
told
by
the
foundation
who
can
and
can't
participate.
So
I
think
that
it,
it's
potentially
reasonable
to
have
something
around
information
sharing
and
sharing
that
information
with
projects.
But
I
think
that
anything
that
says
you
know
the
foundation
will
tell
you
who
and
who
can't
be
a
contributor
starts
to
get
into
like
a
weird
space.
That
I
know
makes
some
projects
uncomfortable
I
also
would
like
to
like.
This
becomes
a
hard
place
because
we
don't
want
to.
F
We
don't
want
to
screw
up,
but
I
think
that
I
really
feel
like
we're
at
risk
of
kind
of
like
overly
formalizing
things
and
like
to
the
point
where
our
debating
back
and
forth
about
how
to
do.
This
has
happened
for
so
long
that
we
do
not
have
like
the
basic
infrastructure
in
place
that
we
need
to
support
issues
from
coming
up.
So
I
do
want
to
encourage
folks
to
perhaps
like
I,
understand
the
need
to
work
through
all
these
edge
cases
and
not
wanting
to
get
caught
without
having
it
planned
for.
H
Me
just
that
is
kind
of
what
it
feels
like
we're
at
of
like
there's
this
thing,
but
it's
not
necessarily
fully
defined
and
like
even
this
conversation
has
had
like
gone
through
three
different
levels
of
like
what
it
should
cover
that
are
completely
distinct
cases
of
like
one.
It
is,
you
know
the
entire
foundation.
What
is
what
happens
when
it
cooks,
project
isn't
happened,
doing
things
well
and
another.
It's
like
what
happens
when
this
has
to
be
dealt
with
like
a
someone
comes
in
reports
and
like
the
project
we're
not
doing
well,
but.
C
C
What's
there,
at
least
in
my
mind,
was
the
minim
that
the
smallest
step
you
could
take
other
than
making
it
purely
like
projects
can
do
whatever
they
want,
and
maybe
you
know
the
the
foundation
can
provide
guidance,
information
whatever,
but
what's
the
smallest
step
you
could
take
if
you're
going
to
go
beyond
that
and
I
think
that's.
What's
there
now
and
in
my
mind,
if
like
if
we
can't
even
agree
to
that,
we
should
probably
just
agree
projects
can
do
whatever
they
want.
We
don't
have
any
requirements
at
this
point,
but
yeah.
J
Just
gonna,
say:
I
think
the
biggest
thing
that
in
general
is
missing
from
code
of
conduct.
Processes
is
for
how
like
to
making
sure
you
define
a
process
for
someone
basically
serve
their
sentence
for
lack
of
a
better
term
and
then
no
longer
be
banned.
You
know
so
whether
it's
like
a
series
of
actions
to
remediate
their
behavior,
so
that
they're
not
like
there
are
cases
where
maybe
someone
should
be
banned
for
life.
J
But
there
are
cases
where
someone's
like
needs
to
like
be
on
probation
and
show
that
they've
changed
and
then
because
otherwise
what
happens
is
someone
did
something
ten
years
ago
and
then
they
can
never
participate
in
a
project
again,
and
we
don't
want
to
get
into
that
scenario.
I
don't
think
assuming
it's
not
like
a
massive
like
people
change
right
and
we
do
want
people
to
have
a
way
out
of
it.
J
C
B
Unfortunately,
you
know:
node
has
been
through
a
lot
of
stuff
and
has
a
lot
of
moderation.
Policies
in
place
and
we've
dealt
with
a
lot
of
that
sort
of
stuff.
So
we
can
certainly
point
for
projects
to
that
of
some
guidance,
but
we
can.
We
can
work
on
this
more
perhaps
next
week.
I
think
this
is
something
we
should.
Definitely
you
know
figure
it
out.
I
Just
a
general
heads-up,
both
jQuery
and
node,
have
asked
recently
for
me
to
go
through
and
perform
some
audits
of
who
has
access
to
various
different
things.
This
is
just
a
heads
up
that
this
is
it
ongoing.
So
if
you
get
some
emails
from
me
asking
for
you
to
verify
your
access
or
or
something
like
that,
just
heads
up,
please
do
respond
and
that
way
I'll
know
not
to
clean
you
up
great
we're
using
a
slightly
different
process
for
each
project,
for
jQuery
I'm,
reaching
out
to
people
directly
for
node
I.
I
Believe
the
plan
is
that
I'm
pulling
a
list
of
everybody
who
has
access
and
then
working
with
the
calm,
calm
and
TSC
chairs
to
do
a
first
round.
Everybody
in
each
organ
is
to
do
a
second
round
and
then
reaching
out
directly.
If
there's
you
know
somebody
else
who
nobody's
really
sure
about,
and
that's
really
about
it
if
there
are
any
projects
that
would
like
the
same
thing
to
happen.
Please
let
me
know
all.
B
Right,
thank
you.
Brian
appreciate
it
I'm
cool
with
that.
We
should
jump
into
a
private
session
for
a
few
and
then
call
it
a
day
thanks
everyone
for
for
attending
and
part
of
what
we
do
and
I'll
ask.
You
know
people
who
are
not
regular
members,
voting
members
or
foundation
staff
to
drop
off.
Thank
you.
I
will.