►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - 2019-09-03
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
We
are
live
streaming
on
YouTube
and
here
in
the
zoom
thanks
everyone
for
joining
the
open,
Jazz
foundation,
cross-project
council
meeting
today
is
September
3rd
p.m.
Eastern
Time.
What
about
1800
UTC
thanks?
Everyone
for
joining
the
agenda
issue
in
the
CPC
is
to
shoot
316
there's
a
related
dot
there.
Your
attending,
please
add
your
name
to
Mizzou.
A
B
A
Great
yeah,
thank
you,
Michael's,
bringing
that
up,
which
reminds
me
we
there's
a
weekly
meeting
to
work
on
the
collab
summits
and
potential
code
learn
as
well
as
well
as
the
community
corner.
So
if
anyone
is
interested
in
joining
that
conversation
will
connect
you
to
the
right
folks.
I'll
also
say
that
in
an
effort
to
take
the
cotan
one
up,
a
level
from
from
being
node
specific
to
being
more
open
jazz
foundation
and
including
other
projects
from
the
foundation,
there's
conversations
going
on
around
that.
A
If
you
are
a
project
maintainer,
please
get
in
touch
with
myself
or
my
nail
or
Christian
about
taking
part
in
the
learn,
which
is
an
opportunity
to
try
and
get
new
contributors
to
the
project
or
just
getting
help
on
on
some
good
first
issues.
Any
areas
that
you
want
to
solicit
some
some
community
on
to
do.
A
The
first
item
on
agenda
is
issue
315,
which
I
will
drop
on
the
chat.
This
is
something
I
opened
up
a
few
days
ago.
I'll
kind
of
recap
the
description
here,
but
basically
the
the
the
issue
is
moving
user
feedback
survey,
efforts
from
nodejs
to
open
jazz
foundation.
The
no
Jazz
community
committee
spun
up
initiative
around
soliciting
user
feedback.
It
kind
of
branched
out
in
a
number
of
ways.
A
There
is
one
example
that
exists
in
the
the
repo
that
was
fully
executed
around
benchmarking
from
the
benchmarking
workgroup.
So
you
can
go
to
the
link
in
the
description
to
see
more
about
that.
Basically,
this
this
part
of
the
effort
is
the
survey
execution
effort
is
something
that
I
have
been
trying
to
spearhead
for
a
bit
and
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
move
it
to
the
open
jail
foundation
and
make
it
available
to
any
project
within
the
foundation.
The
idea
is
that
it
would
essentially
be
self-service.
A
You
could
create
an
issue
and
the
user
feedback
repo
and
opens
ask
foundation
if
we
do
move
it.
There
currently
exists
in
the
node
foundation,
so
you
open
an
issue.
There's
an
issue
template
for
creating
a
survey
that
gives
you
some
guidance
on
what
expected
of
you
as
the
person
opening
the
issue
and
looking.
A
Somebody's
a
little
bit
loud
there
so
be
mindful,
and
basically
you
would
be
responsible
as
a
person
owning
the
request
to
gather
questions
and
like
kind
of
an
objective
and
things
like
that
and
have
someone.
You
know
whether
to
you
or
someone
else
be
the
point
person
in
the
survey
and
then
the
foundation
would
get
involved
and
perhaps
preliminarily
helping
you
craft
your
questions
to
make
sure
you're
gathering
data.
That
would
be
most
useful
and
then
the
foundation
would
help
you
execute
the
survey
they
they
would
execute.
The
survey
on
your
behalf.
C
A
Return
results
that
are
that
are
usable
and
consumable
to
you
as
a
serving
requester,
so
that's
kind
of
the
gist
of
it.
I
I
think
it
makes
sense
to
you,
especially
if
we're
able
to
make
this
self-serve
and
have
the
foundation
support
it
on
execution
side
that
it
could
be
beneficial
to
other
projects.
So,
having
said
all
that
I'll
open
it
up,
if
anybody
has
any
questions
or
comments
or
thoughts,
bubbles.
B
A
Yeah,
that
may
not
be
an
obvious
thing
to
some
folks,
some
projects
at
the
moment,
but
we
do
have
a
few
interested
surveys
that
are
coming
out
of
the
node
project
and
so
I
think
you
know
movie
or
not
make
sense
to
me.
We
could
keep
it
a
no
project
while
we
execute
these
few
more,
but
I
think
I
think
moving
it
up
and
having
it
available.
A
And
I'm
also
mindful
of
the
point
that
it's
been
raised
a
few
times,
so
we
don't
want
to
take
on
initiatives
and
spend
up
working
groups
and
things
like
that
that
we
don't
necessarily
have
the
bandwidth
to
support
or
have
a
clear
objective
for
like
I
said
earlier.
I
think
this
should
end
up
being
fairly
self
served
and
I
will
champion
it
to
to
get
at
that
point,
and
then
it's
and
hopefully
at
that
point
it
should
kind
of
run
itself.
So
I
don't
quickly
have
any
concerns.
A
If
there
are
no
objections,
I
will
start
to
flesh
out
what
it
means
to
bring
this
to
the
foundation.
Perhaps
creating
a
repo
would
make
the
most
sense
and
have
an
issued
template
there
and
kind
of
basically
just
transfer
it
over
from
the
node
foundation.
Maybe
even
transfer
the
existing
repo,
where
I'm
not
sure,
but
I'll
also
give
you
the
effort
to
flesh
out
what
that
would
look
like
and
perhaps
update
this
ticket
s
mo
port
I.
B
A
D
B
I,
wouldn't
move
the
whole
thing
over,
but
if
we
had
a
survey
one
specific
yes,
otherwise
it
will
kind
of
bring
a
lot
of
noise
that
isn't
relevant.
So.
A
A
E
I,
don't
think
that
we
had
actually
like
an
explicit
action
item.
I
think
that
it
was
a
little
bit
more
about
like
having
to
discuss
it
more
and
what
the
role
of
the
mentor
would
be
versus
the
role
of
like
a
champion
if
they
were
the
same
thing,
if
they
weren't
the
same
thing,
I
think
it
was
just
kind
of
those
those
high-level
concerns.
I
can't
recall,
but
I
feel,
like
we
said
we're.
A
Yeah
for
context
or
focuses
around
new
projects
coming
in
the
proposal
was
that
we
would,
you
know
someone
on
the
CPC
would
be
identified
as
a
champion,
hopefully
step
up
themselves
and
then
the
question
sort
of
becomes.
Does
that
person
you
know?
Do
the
work
to
get
that
project
all
the
way
through
the
incubating
process,
or
did
they
just
sort
of
evaluate
whether
it
is
a
fit?
A
D
E
So
again,
I
guess
like
so
it
would
be
on
like
a
per
case
basis,
so
it'd
be
like
when
a
project
like
so
I
think
what
I
had
suggested
specifically
in
that
text,
and
the
idea
would
be
that
I
would
add
to
our
current
process
so
that
during
the
silent
period,
a
member
of
the
CPC
or
alternatively,
someone
from
the
community
would
have
to
be
identified
as
being
that
projects
champion.
And
if
we
could
not
identify
that
person
during
this
I'll
agree
that
they
would
not
move
into.
The
incubation.
E
A
E
E
F
E
C
A
To
it,
but
I
think
perhaps
a
specific
what
next
time,
all
right,
great
so
moving
on,
then
the
next
item
is
pull
requests
305.
This
is
a
charter
change.
We
there's
a
recent
comment,
yeah,
so
Chris,
who
I
don't
think
is
able
to
be
on
the
meeting.
This
commented
three
hours
ago.
This
PR
has
been
open
for
the
required
14
days.
Many
approvals,
no
objections
so
he'll
bring
this
charter
change.
The
board
approval
I
think
he
even
did
he
say
that
he's
already
sent
it
via
Brian
yeah
right
and
someone.
Yes,.
A
That's
their
yeah
all
right,
so
we
will
leave
it
open.
Does
it
have
the
appropriate
yeah?
It's
block
board
approval
required,
okay,
great,
so
we
don't
need
to
spin
our
wheels
on
that
one
at
all,
we'll
check
back
on
it
next
week.
The
next
item
is
this:
is
issued
to
96
specify
the
scope
of
CPC
votes
during
application
and
incubation
I
paint
a
toby
earlier
I
mean
maybe
maybe
yeah
and
you
open
this
issue
as
well
Toby.
A
D
Think
what
we
came
down
to
was
the
conclusion
that
if
you
look
at
other
projects,
you
have
similar
like
there's
no
process
around
this,
it's
all
based
on
norms.
You
know
the
fact
that
other
projects
have
a
long,
a
history
and
the
open
J's
foundation
is,
you
know,
new,
makes
that
more
intimidating
from
the
outside,
basically,
and
so
I
think
on
what
miles
was
suggesting?
What
makes
sense
would
be
to
sort
of
describe
some
of
the
expectations
around
how
painters
that
were
sitting
on
the
CPC?
D
E
D
I
mean
basically
the
idea
for
that
particular
that
specific
problem
in
this
you
know
if
a
CPC
member
has
issues
was
a
project
upfront.
What
you
know
these
issues
should
be
brought
up
to
the
CPC
and
to
the
project
as
they
show
up
and
not
sort
of
like
be
kept
under
the
rug
up
until
there's
a
rotation,
and
whether
project
should
continue
in
that
and
then
sort
of
be
pulled
out
like
that.
So
you
know
an
expectation
of
like
behaving
in
good
faith
and
rising
issues
as
soon
as
they
show
up.
E
And
then
I
think
a
few
of
the
other.
Things
were
also
that,
like
in
how
we
read
it
like
there
was
never
an
intention
of
a
official
vote
to
move
out
of
the
incubation
phase
and
then
further-
and
you
know
this
is
a
good
thing.
You
get
people
on
the
call
to
chime
in
since
we
do
have
a
you
know.
A
handful
of
our
CPC
on
here
I
think
that
the
hope
was
that
the
votes
were
more
a
matter
of
process
and
Brian.
E
E
It
would
be
more
of
a
formality
than
anything
else
and
that,
like
moving
into
incubation,
would
itself
be
a
contentious
process,
not
a
voting
process
as
like
in
general.
The
majority
of
things
that
we
do
within
this
committee
I
meant
three
consensus
based
and
working
towards
having
you
nana
me
rather
than
having
dissents.
E
So
you
know
I,
think
I.
Think
to
the
point
that
is
being
raised
by
Toby,
that
a
good
chunk
of
this
is
definitely
around
like
norms
and
making
sure
that
those
expectations
are
documented
because,
as
we
bring
in
more
people-
and
as
you
know,
we
get
further
and
further
away
from
you
know
the
spirit
of
how
all
of
this
is
written.
C
Yeah
and
miles
just
to
chime
in
on
the
site,
I
can
certainly
ask
guess
we're
after
growth
for
a
for
an
opinion
on
this
I
we
can
I
can
come
back
to
that
as
it
to
do.
But
one
thing
I
will
say:
is
that
one
place
where
we
would
certainly
need
board
approval
is
if
a
project
coming
on
board
had
any
budget
dependency,
so
I
I
mean
that's,
that's
one
thing
I
do
know
for
sure,
but
I
will
check
on
the
other
one.
B
Right
now,
I
think
so,
but
I
think
in
specific
to
this
one
like
whether
we
need
a
vote
at
a
specific
transition
point
where
they
become
like
you
know,
and
actually
joining
the
foundation
versus
not
that's
separate
from
this
one,
which
was
around
like
during
the
quiet
period.
So
I
think
we
could
probably,
unless
there's
objections,
document
the
like
in
the
quiet
period.
There's
not
any
intention
to
have
a
have
a
vote.
It's
it's
to
get
a
feel
for
whether
there
are
going
to
be
objections.
B
D
B
B
B
You
know
up
early
early
in
advance
of
exit
from
the
quiet
period
so
that
they
can
be
discussed
and
shared
so
that
you
know
it
may
not
block
the
exit
of
from
the
quiet
period,
but
there
shouldn't
be.
You
know
all
of
a
sudden
after
that
point
one
of
the
CTC
members
saying
well
I've
always
thought
this
was
like
a
problem
from
the
beginning
right
precisely
and
and.
E
In
theory-
and
perhaps
we
need
to
be
more
explicit
about
this-
our
current
membership
expectations,
which
you
know
includes
like,
has
the
CPC
as
part
of
it
is
when
decisions
are
made
within
the
established
guidelines
and
policies
of
the
up,
nsj
foundation,
project
or
groups.
Those
and
leadership
roles
have
a
responsibility
to
uphold
and
respect
the
decision,
even
if
they
disagree
with
it.
This
is
especially
important
in
external
communication,
for
example,
in
social
media.
Now,
a
lot
of
this
was
meant
about
like
upholding
decisions
that
were
made.
E
So
perhaps
we
need
to
add
language
that
makes
it
explicit
like
if
you
have
objections
or
concerns
you're
expected
to
bring
it
up.
You
know
early
in
a
timely
fashion,
but
I
do
think
that
each
chunk
of
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
kind
of
already
covered
in
the
membership
expectations
document
yeah.
E
But
people
push
back
against
that
specifically
because
well
like
what,
if
things
change,
what
if
there
is
sure
vision
that
becomes
available
later
so
just
from
a
prior
art
standpoint,
you
know
there
was
pushback
against
stronger
language
there
when
it
was
initially
drafted,
but
doesn't
mean
we
shouldn't
try
to
add
more.
In
fact,
we
can
even
dig
up
the
exact
language
that
we
removed.
Yeah.
B
B
Like
I
can
certainly
see
like
just
because
there
weren't
objections
before
the
quiet
period
doesn't
mean
there
can't
be
objections
afterwards,
it's
it's
more.
The
you
know.
It
sounded
like
in
the
discussion
that
adding
some
some
reminder
that
you
know
it's
like.
Basically,
just
do
your
best
to
raise
everything
in
advance
and
discuss
it.
Even
you
know,
don't
don't
you
know,
encouragingly,
like
if
you're
gonna,
if
you
have
concerns
it's
probably
better,
to
err
on
the
side
of
expressing
them
than
not
right.
Yeah.
E
And
that's
something
that
we
could
add
to
the
membership
expectations
which
I
think
is
in
general
good
guidance
for
anything,
including
this,
which
is
like,
if
you
have
concerns
and
objections,
bring
them
up
as
soon
as
possible.
Yeah
I-
and
I
think
that
that
broad
statement
covers
this
case
Toby
if
we
had
that
really
really
broad
guidance.
As
far
as
how
we
expect
CPC
members
to
engage
and
everything
would
that
be
sufficient
for
your
concerns,
or
do
you
want
something?
That's
more
specific
to
know.
D
A
B
A
A
A
B
A
E
If
we,
if
we
think
about
kind
of
you,
know
like
how
a
business
would
approach
this,
you
have
certain
kind
of
guidelines.
We
could
have
something
that,
like
you,
should
expect
an
initial
response
with
within
an
amount
of
time
and
an
idea
of
the
timeframe
within
an
amount
of
time
or
something
like
not
to
be
too
broad
in
hand-wavy.
But
we
could
have
a
commitment
to
responding
within
one
week
and
if
the
process
is
to
take
longer
than
say
two
or
three
weeks
to
be
given
a
heads-up
about
it.
B
I'm,
you
know
that
I
think
is
good,
like
you
know,
response
an
initial
response
that
says
you
know.
Basically
thank
you
for
your
application.
We
are
considering
it.
You
know
within
a
week,
I
I.
Could
you
know
we
could
pick
something
like
a
month
to
say
you
know.
Normally
you
get
a
response
within
a
month
and
if
it's
gonna
be
longer
than
that,
we'll
just
pull.
Will
you
know,
send
you
a
communication
or
whatever
the
right
time
is
right,
like
that
sounds
like
a
good
approach
to
me.
B
What
are
people's
thoughts
in
terms
of
like
you
know
the
one
week
in
in
one
month,
for
you
know
one
week
to
say:
hey!
Thank
you
for
your
application
one
month,
for
you
know,
normally
you
hear
back
from
us
in
terms
of
a
you
know
entering
the
next
phase
within
a
month,
or
is
that
you
know
who,
or
should
it
be
two
weeks
or
whatever
I
mean
I'm
picking
a
number
right?
But
what
do
people
think
in
terms
of
that
number
I
think.
A
G
H
E
Though
be
with
that,
be
at
least
like
a
Parkway
like
appeasing
to
your
concern,
I
know
that
it
would
be
great
to
give
people
a
timeline,
and
perhaps
we
can
even
give
a
time
on
that
it
will
be
no
longer
than
this
amount
of
time.
But
to
me
I
guess
it
would
be
much
better
for
us
to
just
say
like
we
will
never
take
like
you
will
always
hear
from
us
within
you
know.
E
B
E
E
Don't
need
a
board
approval
to
move
people
into
the
incubation
phase,
or
at
least
not
an
immediate
oxygen.
You
may
want
to
give
like
the
board
and
fYI
by
email
in
case
they
have
an
objection,
but
the
board
is
on
the
exact
same
email
like
every
board
member
is
on
that
list.
This
is
not
something
like
in
general
that,
like,
in
my
mind,
needs
any
official
sign-off
to
move
into
incubation.
E
G
B
E
And
that
was
what
it's
meant
to
filter
out
and
then
further-
and
this
is
kind
of
Toby's
point,
and
this
is
something
that
we
can
maybe
have
enter
membership
guidelines.
It's
also
meant
to
like
kind
of
maybe
undermine
is
not
the
best
word
to
use
when
I'm
talking
about
a
positive
thing.
But
it's
meant
to
stop
like
an
anti-pattern
of
oh
I
have
a
problem
with
this
project,
but
I'm
just
going
to
be
silent
until
the
vote
and
then
try
to
undermine
it
at
the
time
of
the
vote
now,
I.
D
Effort
is
done
on
those
sites
to
take
it
all
the
way
through
incubation
and
the
other
one
is
to
make
sure
that
the
time
the
timeline,
the
actual
silent
period
is
well
understood,
so
that
whatever
announcement
have
to
be
made
afterwards
can
be
made,
and
so
here
I
feel
like
what
would
be
helpful
if
I
look
at
it
from
sort
of
my
perspective
would
be
I
like
the
idea
of
having
a
commitment
for
an
update,
that's
in
a
short
timeframe
and
I.
Think
that
something
like
you
know.
D
If
this
is
a
simple
case,
we
can
give
you
an
answer
in
a
week
or
enough.
This
is
like.
If
there
are
no,
you
know
if
this
can
go
through
smoothly.
We
can
give
you
an
answer
in
a
week.
We
will
need.
You
know,
X
amount
more
time.
If
there
are,
you
know,
pending
issues
about
bringing
in
that
project
and
I
know
just
saying
a
week,
it
could
be
a
two
weeks
or
like
24
hours,
so
whatever
makes
sense
from
a
purely
like
technical
perspective
on
your
side.
B
Why
I'm
throwing
out
a
month-
because
you
know
I
figure
after
a
month
if
anybody's
had
concerns
they've
had
enough
time
to
become
aware
voice
them
have
some
discussion,
whereas
in
a
week
somebody
could
go
away
for
a
week.
They
come
back
and
it's
like
oh
wait.
A
second
I
had
a
big
problem
with
that
right.
So.
E
First
off,
oh,
no,
never
mind
there
isn't
an
attendee.
It
said
an
attendee
I.
Think
that,
like
what
we're
talking
about
here
is
an
SLA
basically
like
we
want
to
have
an
agreement
of
you
know
like
we
will
do
this
within
a
certain
amount
of
time
and
Toby
I.
Think
what
what
like
the
pushback
that
that
you're
feeling
here
a
little
bit
is
we
haven't
even
done
this
enough
to
know
what
we
should
commit
to
yeah.
D
E
E
At
the
very
least
you
know
there
shouldn't
be
concerns
about
like
it,
taking
too
long
or
radio
silence,
which
would
really
be
in
my
personal
experience,
like
the
bigger
problem
would
be
being
dragged
along
without
any
answers
and
I,
but
I
would
totally
be
up
for
revisiting
this
after
a
couple
projects
come
through
and
we
have
an
idea
of
like
how
long
the
time
takes
for
people
to
feel
comfortable.
No.
B
E
Isn't
that
you
know
like
something
that,
at
the
very
least
like
we
can
rely
on
Brian
or
other
PMS
P
GM's
from
the
Foundation
to
help
maintain
for
us
to
me.
That
seems
like
the
perfect
either
that
or
the
champion
right
like
right.
This
is
good
stuff.
That
a
champion
should
be
responsible
for
is
ongoing
communication
and
then
Lewin
that
foundation
staff
should
be.
A
C
Yeah
absolutely
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
be
the
creator
and
then,
unless
there's
a
situation
where
nobody
has
any
particular
appendage
ease
of
the
project,
you
know
I'm
certainly
happy
to
work
with
them
as
well
and
make
sure
that
they
get
the
status
updates.
The
heartbeats
make
sure
that
they
know
that
they're
still
in
the
process,
still
under
consideration
and
things
are
still
moving,
but
at
the
same
time
I
also
don't
want
to
step
in.
C
E
That's
dawning
on
me
right
now
too,
would
be.
Perhaps
what
we
really
need
here
is
like
champion
expectations
to
go
along
with
that
thing
of
specifying
a
champion
and
like
we
could
add
to
it
that
the
champion
is
responsible
for
like
ongoing
communication
with
the
projects
or
at
the
very
least,
ensuring
that
someone
is
responsible
for
it.
C
That's
very
that's
very
much
in
line
with
what
I
was
going
to
say,
whether
it's
me
or
whether
it's
somebody
else
I'd
suggest
that
the
person
who's
responsible
for
first
contact
be
the
same
person
every
single
time
so
that
nobody
gets
confused
about
who's
actually
supposed
to
be
doing
it
and
I'm
certainly
happy
to
do
that
or
if
we
wanted
have.
Somebody
else
do
that.
That's
totally
fine,
too,
but
I
just
think
it
should
be
very
consistent
from
time
to
time
so
that
it
doesn't
go
accidentally
neglected.
Although.
B
I
could
I
was
just
gonna,
say,
I
think
the
first
one
might
come
back
as
a
thank
you.
We
have
it
and
that
could
be.
You
know
Brian
or
or
Jory,
and
then,
if
we
had
a
champion
it
might
consistently
come
from
them.
Yep
would
be
the
only
tweak
on
what
you
said,
but
yeah
I
think
once
the
converse
you
know
once
it's
ongoing,
it
should
be
one
person.
E
So
I
mean
something
that
also
is
worth
considering
here.
You
know:
we've
had
some
projects
already
start
the
process
and
like
they
opened
an
email
to
that
thread,
Brian
and
then
it
ended
up
becoming
a
conversation
back
and
forth
between
that
team,
and
you
know
our
team
in
that
thread.
We've
had
some.
You
know
like
branches
from
the
thread
that
are
more
private
conversation,
but
perhaps
we
need
to
revisit
that
and
consider
whether
or
not
like
you
know
we
we
want
a
firewall
there
or
not
like
do.
E
B
Yeah
I
was
personally,
you
know,
not
upset,
but
a
little
bit
surprised
that
the
application
person
was
on
the
same
stream
as
chatting
back
and
forth
right,
because
that
can
have
a
couple
of
you
know.
One
people
might
not
be
quite
as
open
to
to
raise
our
concerns
and
two.
It
might
actually
make
concerns
which
are
like
soft
concerns
sound
more
discouraging
to
the
applicant
than
they.
They
really
are
right.
B
C
Yeah
I
mean
there
are
ways
that
we
can
do
this.
We
we
set
up
the
list
originally
to
receive
mail
from
anybody
who's
already
a
member
of
the
groups.
So
this
is
the
same
as
well.
We've
done,
for
example,
for
reporting
for
code
of
conduct
reporting,
and
the
idea
is
that
the
person
is
not
actually
able
to
join
the
list,
but
they
can
mail
into
the
list.
C
And
then,
if
somebody
reply
all
replies
all
to
the
message,
then
of
course
it
goes
back
to
them
because
they're
on
directly
on
the
message
I
can
set
up
an
alias
that
would
instead
just
forward
to
the
list.
So
when
somebody
sends
in
an
application,
it
goes
to
the
alias
the
alias
forwards
and
onto
the
list.
So
even
replies
don't
go
back
to
the
person.
B
B
C
E
A
A
D
A
I
don't
know
next
thing
on
the
list.
Is
the
duplicate
onboarding
checklist
miles
open
the
PR?
That's
pull
request
to
304
and,
as
Miles
said
an
hour
ago,
he
plans
to
blandness.
If
there
are
no
objections
in
the
meeting
today.
Are
there
any
objections
to
this?
We've
got
a
couple
of
approvals,
I,
actually
paying
jewelry
before
the
meeting
to
see
if
she
can
check
it
before
we
got
into
the
meeting,
but
I
wonder
just
check
my
messages.
A
I've
approved
Michaels
approved
other
folks
coming
to
p-chem
great,
so
moving
on
the
last
things
that
we
usually
actually.
Let
me,
let
me
make
sure
miles
also
mentioned
issue
317,
that
maybe
we
should
touch
on
real
quickly.
On
these
four
last
remaining
moments,
I
saw
that
Leslie
West
Todd
responded
about
github
actions
versus
Travis
miles.
You
want
to
dis
some
context
and
update
or
anything
there.
E
B
B
E
B
A
All
right
excellent,
so
what
will
investigate
actions
there
and
I'll
see
if
there
any
objections
to
using
that
as
close
to
Travis?
So
we
have
six
minutes
left.
There
is
a
request
for
some
private
period,
so
maybe
we
should
wrap
up
the
meeting
here,
see
our
devise
and
and
have
a
short
private
session,
so
I'm
going
to
stop
the
stream
thanks
for
everyone
to
for
participating.
Let
me
kill
that.