►
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
Okay,
I
think
we
should
be
live
here
in
just
a
minute.
Let
me
remind
everyone
to
pop
into
that
notes,
document
that
I
shared
and
Zoo
and
ask
you
to
please
record
your
attendance
under
the
present
heading
before
we
get
started.
Are
there
any
announcements
we
would
like
to
share
today.
A
And
I
will
just
thank
everybody
for
coming
to
the
collab
summit
last
week
and
also
for
helping
to
make
the
conference
and
the
summit.
You
know
really
really
successful
and
quite
a
bit
of
fun,
we're
looking
forward
to
doing
that
again
in
June
as
Robin
just
shared
June,
23rd
and
24th
Austin
mark
your
calendars
hope
to
get
the
copper
proposals
and
stuff
up
very
soon,
so
you
can
think
about
joining
us
as
a
speaker
or
sponsor.
Where
is
an
attendee?
A
B
Hello,
everyone,
as
you
can
see
in
the
issue
there,
there's
a
link
to
the
project
charter
and
I,
pretty
much
like
myself
to
the
template
that
we
had
and
yeah
I,
don't
know
what
put
theirs
to
add.
I
was
I
was
listing
also
the
TSC
members,
because
Myles
has
noted
that
in
the
governance
model
it
says
that
there
should
be
not
more
than
one-third
of
PSC
members.
For
my
own
company
and
I
was
confirming
that
listing
the
TSC
members
and
one
of
the
posts
yeah,
not
sure
what
that.
C
C
B
B
C
A
So
this
is
gonna,
be
you
know
one
of
the
first
charters
that
we
review
as
a
CPC,
which
is
super
exciting.
It's
a
big,
important
step
of
our
onboarding
process.
I
think
it's
probably
good
to
just
check-in
really
quick,
so
we're
all
on
the
same
page
about
what
that
means
to
approve
so
per
our
policy.
We're
approving
these
after
there
have
been
two
or
more
approvals
by
voting
CPC
members
and
the
issue
has
been
open
for
at
least
14
days.
Also
assuming
there's
no
outstanding
objections
and
there's
not
been
some
sort
of
substantive
change.
A
That
may
you
know
want
us
to
go
to
the
board
and
to
request
legal
review,
for
example,
which
I
don't
think
anything
in
this
document
would
raises
to
that
level.
So
we're
looking
for
voting
CPC
members
to
add
their
approval
to
this
and
and
then
after
that,
we've
got
just
basically
a
time
clock
is
that
everyone
else's
understanding
as
well.
I.
C
Believe
that
was
my
understanding.
I
guess,
like
the
one
thing
I
would
want
to
be
careful
with
regarding
charters
is
because
it
is
kind
of
like
there
are
legal
documents
and
we
are
chartering
the
responsibility
from
the
CPC
to
these
projects.
I'm
just
curious.
If
we
do
require
whether
it's
a
vote
or
something
that's
more
explicit
because
I
know,
for
example,
at
the
board
for
charter
changes,
they
do
require
a
motion.
D
C
E
A
Mean
I
I'm,
not
a
voting
member
but
but
I
would
encourage
the
path
of
least
process
on
this,
and
given
that
we've
got
so
many
different
components
of
review
and
assessment
during
onboarding
that
it
would
seem
to
me
like
it
might
be
best
to
to
continue
this
approval
process.
In
the
same
vein
that
we've
been
doing
other
governance
approval,
but
that's
my
two
cents.
If
you
know,
if
somebody
really
felt
strongly
that
we
needed
like,
for
example,
a
voting
system,
you
know
a
balloting
system,
I.
D
C
A
A
A
C
F
D
A
E
It
it
might
be
worthwhile
so
thinking
you
know,
Jory,
you
and
I
have
had
this
conversation
a
few
times.
How
do
we
maintain
an
index
of
who's
who
within
the
various
projects-
and
it
may
be
worthwhile
saying,
in
addition
to
maintaining
a
local
project
charter?
Please
also
maintain
or
point
to
a
list
of
maintained
errs,
and
you
know
we
can
essentially
create
a
single
point
of
reference
for
vital
project
data,
which
would
be
very,
very
helpful,
I
think
both
of
the
CPC
level,
but
also
at
the
foundation
level.
A
E
A
A
G
F
A
The
website,
okay
cool,
so
we
wanted
to
get
as
one
of
the
action
items.
From
that
conversation,
we
wanted
to
get
some
guidance
from
Brian
and
you
the
board
about
whether
this
foundation,
copyright
PR
that
that
Brian
is
authored
here
is
this
meant
to
be
a
guide
that
we
can
easily
kind
of
amend
to
provide
more
tactical?
You
know
step-by-step
instruction
in
some
cases,
or
is
this
something
that
really
shouldn't
change?
E
That
makes
that
makes
a
ton
of
sense
so
things
so
since
this
this
document
is
a
guide
versus
an
actual
accepted
document
by
the
by
the
Board
of
Directors,
I
I
think
I
would
be
very
accurate
and
saying.
Our
hope
is
that
this
is
clear
and
it
may
require
modifications
make
it
clearer
changing
this
does
not
change
policy.
So
that's
that's
one
important
thing
to
keep
in
mind,
so
it
in
some
in
many
senses.
E
You
know
this
is
not
the
place
to
make
changes
if
you
are
not
comfortable
with
something
in
the
IP
policy,
that's
something
which
would
need
to
go
back
to
the
board.
However,
this
is
also
a
way
to
have
discussions
about
these
things,
and
it's
a
it's
a
good
place
to
have
discussions
about
these
things
that
these
issues
can
be
raised
in
a
particularly
practical
context.
So
getting
to
your
direct
question
there
Jory.
If
there
are
places
where
the
process
can
be
clarified
or
can
be
improved,
then?
Yes,
absolutely.
E
This
should
be
considered
a
living
document
which
can
be
updated
and
can
be
modified
as
we
you
know,
go
through
and
discover.
Maybe
situations
that
weren't
considered
or
discover
things
which
weren't
practical
and
need
to
go
back
to
the
board
for
further
consideration
for
possible
amendments,
the
IP
policy-
this
is
a
great
place
to
do
it.
Does
that
make
sense.
G
A
hundred
percent-
yes,
this
was
unclear
when
we
had
a
conversation
about
it
at
the
meeting
last
week
and
so
having
clarity.
There
is
great
I
what
should
be
like
the
next
step
here:
I,
don't
I,
don't
think.
Now
is
a
good
time
to
rehab
the
conversation
that
we
wanted
to
have
during
that
meeting,
but
couldn't
because
we
didn't
have
clarity
around
us
should
we
try
to
discuss
that
on
in
asynchronously
on
the
issue
or
like
said
some
time
up
another
time
to
talk
about
this
here.
E
E
So
I
guess
it
depends
on
the
content
of
what
what
you're
asking
you
about.
So,
if
it's
about
clarifying
things
that
are
already
in
there,
let's
discuss
it
in
the
issue.
If
it's
a
broader
question
about
policy,
I
would
say
either
start
a
new
issue
or
we
can
discuss
it
during
a
set-aside
time
during
one
of
the
calls
it.
G
G
My
issue
was
a
meta
issue
about
whether
we
should
be
prescriptive
and
you
know,
go
really
to
basics,
about
what
people
should
you
know
the
simplest
thing.
People
should
do
to
meet
the
requirements
and
sort
of
be
really
focused
on
that
and
have
all
of
the
extra
bells
and
whistles
so
in
a
white
below
the
fold
to
take
a
web
metaphor
or
if
I
mean,
if
basically
so
that
was
my.
G
E
G
A
bit
more
than
that
is
my
request.
I
mean
I'm
coming
from
the
idea
that
from
a
developer's
perspective-
and
you
know
and
I
think
that's
true
of
like
a
small
project
as
much
as
there
is
of
a
large
one
like
amp
people
that
handle
that
I
have
to
handle
legalish
things
just
want
simple
instructions
and
want
the
those
to
be
like.
G
You
know
the
experience
of
implementing
this
stuff
to
be
as
frictionless
as
possible
and
that's
forgettable
as
possible,
and
so
my
goal
would
be
that
such
a
document
would
basically
bear
that
in
mind
in
in
terms
of
like
how
it
is,
actually,
you
know,
consumed
structured
and,
what's
actually
you
know,
they
it'd
be
really
prescriptive
in
terms
of
here.
The
three
things
that
you
have
to
do:
here's
how
you
have
to
do
them
and
if
you
do
this,
you're
done
I.
E
Got
you
so
I
think
at
you
know,
I
think
it
makes
a
ton
of
sense.
We
could
put
a
summary
on
the
summary
eventually
of
its.
E
G
E
A
That
sounds
great
I'm.
Just
kind
of
you
know
collaborating
on
on
it
in
that
way
and
then
on
some.
You
know
that
bringing
it
back
so
people
can
make
sure
that
in
this
next
sort
of
version
that
the
guide
is
really
answering
the
questions
that
they
have.
You
know,
which
I
think
is
really
what
we're
getting
to
hear
so
would
be
thrilled
for
y'all
to
do
that.
Yeah.
G
A
A
Well
sounds
like:
we've
got
a
good,
an
answer.
We
needed
Ana's
next,
stuck
there
so
assuming
there
are
no
other
comments
or
thoughts
or
concerns
from
our
our
peanut
Aaron
motley
peanut
gallery.
We
can
move
on
to
the
next
next
issue,
which
is
number
413.
Add
a
of
the
contributor
covenant,
COC
text
and
you
just
go
I
think
this
is
Emily's.
Who
is
not
going
to
be
able
to
make
it
today
eventually
yeah.
G
So
we
can
actually
make
those
modifications
on
the
seriousiy
itself,
and
we
also
had
this
discussion
the
day
before
in
the
meeting
when
Robin
was
there
I've
been
mixing
the
two
meetings
in
my
head
and
I
I
think
we
sort
of
went
arrived
at
some
conclusion
that
it
would
be
good
to
have
one
document
for
the
whole
foundation
that
would
be
on
the
foundation's
website
was
an
easy
way
to
be
able
to
make
reports
from
there.
G
H
I
would
can
just
happy
here.
Sorry
I
was
a
little
bit
late.
I,
concur
with
that.
Toby
I
think
that
we
have
like
a
few
aspects
to
this,
that
we
need
to
work
through.
You
know
we're
where
the
COC
is
and
how
the
projects
either
link
to
it
or
refer
to
it
or
what-have-you
and
reporting
and
moderation,
and
we
had
some
good
discussions
with
some
folks
who
they're
deeply
intimate
with
the
node
policies
and
how
they
would
need
to
change.
H
If
we
were
to
think
about
things
like
you
know,
Foundation
banning
and-
and
you
know,
escalation-
and
you
know
a
variety
of
things,
and
so,
if
I'm
not
mistaken,
the
idea
was
to
form
some
sort
of
panel
I,
don't
know
if
it's
the
actual
code
of
conduct
panel,
yet
or
moderation,
team
or,
however
you'd
call
it
or
if
it's
just
a
team
to
start.
You
know
passion
through
this.
You
know
maybe
some
meetings
specific
to
it.
H
C
If
I
can
make
a
really
quick
point
of
order
here,
I
think
that
we're
spiraling
a
bit
from
like
this
specific
issue.
That's
on
the
agenda,
though,
is
the
issue.
That's
on
the
agenda
is
very
specifically
about
whether
or
not
the
contributor
code
of
covenant
text
is
inline
or
if
we
have
a
pointer
to
it.
C
H
A
C
G
C
It's
very
simple,
like
the
text
that
exists
right
now,
for
the
contributor
code
of
Covenant
requires
slight
augmentation,
such
as
adding
the
email
addresses
of
who
to
contact,
as
well
as
possibly
a
small
bit
of
text,
stating
that
the
code
of
conduct
applies
to
individual
project
spaces.
They
just
don't
exist
in
the
upstream
version.
Further.
There
may
be
small
tweaks
that
we
want
to
make
that
while
we
do
want
to
upstream
them,
we
may
need
to
fork
temporarily
to
be
able
to
land
them
within
our
own
code
of
conduct.
C
H
H
C
G
A
All
right
awesome.
A
That
was
number
413.
We
moved
down
the
list
to
number
411,
which
is
kicking
off
an
open,
J's
foundation,
project
landscape,
and
this
actually
was
one
we
will
visit
about
this
in
person
during
the
collab
summits
and
I.
Think
honestly,
there
were
so
many
other
conversations.
This
wasn't
a
thread
that
we
picked
up
during
the
collapse
summit,
at
least
not
that
I'm,
aware
of
so.
A
E
E
Think
the
main
questions
as
I
understand
them
are:
how
do
we
present
this
and
how
do
we,
how
to
represent
the
scope
with
this
I
would
note
that
the
the
various
accessibility
concerns
that
were
raised
have
been
addressed
with
their
recent
push.
In
fact,
it
was
addressed
up
stream
within
the
project
itself,
the
landscape
project
itself,
and
that
addresses
some
of
the
contrast
issues
as
well.
In
fact,
there
were
no
alt
tags
on
the
images,
so
those
are
I
believe
resolved.
A
A
A
Number
four:
oh
five:
this
was
another
action
item
that
I
self-assigned
I
still
have
an
outstanding
obligation
here
to
make
some
changes
and
which
I
just
flat-out
apologize
for
not
having
done
yet.
A
A
H
Not
much
to
it
yeah,
basically,
you
know
adds
a
bullet
point
for
be
available
as
a
primary
point
of
contact
or
the
incubation
period,
if
need
if
reached
and
then
to
process
action
items
published,
project
charter
on
website
or
github
and
champion
remains
the
point
of
contact
with
CPC,
but
also
document
project
and
foundation.
Contacts
for
and
then
the
the
three
subsequent
contact
once.
A
Well,
this
seems
really
straightforward
to
me
and
I
think
it
does
the
job
of
clarifying
that
at
least
in
like
in
the
process
piece,
but
let
me
ask
and
others
if
they
feel
it.
It
does
I
mean
we're
here,
because
our
intent,
you
know
our
intentions,
didn't
quite
match
our
words.
So
just
as
is
this
as
clear
as,
of
course
it
needs
to
be.
G
G
A
A
G
H
A
H
A
H
A
Just
kidding
all
right,
we
will
move
on
and
not
not
tease,
Toby
any
longer
to
number
379
move
COC
proposal
to
stage
three
and.
A
H
H
H
C
But
you
know
my
impression
from
the
last
couple
of
conversations
that
we've
had
is
that
it's
potentially
even
a
broader
need
a
to
make
sure
that
the
policies
that
we
have
down
are
what
we
want
to
move
forward
with
in
be
ensuring
that
projects
have
actually
been
have
been
actively
consulted
on.
What's
gonna
happen
here,
since
it
will,
you
know,
affect
them.
C
H
F
H
C
H
G
C
C
One
thing
I
am
wondering
is:
if
it's
better
to
wait
until
the
new
year
to
kick
this
off.
It's
like
when
you
start
a
new
thing.
You
usually
get
like
new
energy,
going,
simply
pick
it
off
right
now
and
then
everyone
vanishes
and
then
comes
back.
It
does
introduce
a
risk
of
it.
Just
kind
of
stalling
yeah.
A
A
A
So
I'm
not
sure
that
Jonah
has
had
any
further
time
to
work
on
the
proposal
he
was
developing
but
I
think
we're
pretty
close
and
one
of
the
things
we
talked
about
me
being
like
Mateo
and
James
and
Joe,
and
a
handful
of
other
people
was.
We
just
really
need
to
do
the
next
step
here,
Oh
enriched,
which
is
like
kind
of
transfer
the
process
that
currently
exists
over
to
the
foundation
so
I
think
on
this
front.
We
really
just
need,
maybe
a
volunteer
to
kind
of
do
the
administer
to
go
Joe.
H
B
A
A
A
Very
adorable
miles
I
think
it
was
here's
a
question.
There
were
a
number
of
different
groups,
collecting
notes
and
things
from
the
collab
summit.
Do
we
want
to
suggest
look
like
compiling
those
and
putting
them
all
in
one
spot,
I'm
thinking,
especially
about
the
denotes
from
different
CPC
sections,
which
others
may
want
to
have
access
to
you
like
to
start
yeah.