►
From YouTube: enJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2022-05-24
Description
No description was provided for this meeting.
If this is YOUR meeting, an easy way to fix this is to add a description to your video, wherever mtngs.io found it (probably YouTube).
A
B
A
A
Now
now
we'll
get
started,
hey
thanks
for
joining
another
episode
of
the
openjs
foundation's
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
the
24th
of
the
month
of
may
and
yeah
thanks
everybody
for
joining
and
if
you
watch
the
live
stream
feel
free
to
reach
out.
If
you
have
any
questions
or
want
to
have
you,
let's
get
things
rolling,
do
we
have
any
announcements.
C
C
The
the
board
meeting
that
is
usually
on
the
on
the
last
friday
of
the
month
is
is
not
happening
because
we're
going
to
have
that
in
person
on
the
6th
on
monday
june,
the
6th.
So
those
of
you
who
may
have
been
looking
forward
to
watching
the
public
session
on
friday
and
we're
we're
moving
that
meeting
to
the
sixth.
So
that's
that's
an
fyi.
We
still
have
lots
of
you
know
space,
I
think
for
our
our
community
projects,
if
there's
any
open,
js
project
or
adjacent
to
the
foundation
project.
C
Who
wants
a
space
to
do?
You
know
a
quick
lightning
talk
about
the
project
or
an
update
or
demo,
or
something
like
that.
Please
reach
out
to
us
for
the
programming
committee,
so
we
can
get
you
on
the
schedule
for
the
theater
space
because
we're
going
to
be
publishing
that
to
the
final
agenda
soon.
C
So
there's
there's
that
so
really
excited
to
see
everybody
understand.
The
node
collab
summit
is
coming
together
quite
nicely.
Please
reach
out
to
waleed.
If
you
have
any
questions
about
the
node
collab
summit
on
the
9th
and
10th.
That
is,
I
think
I
mean
that's.
That's
the
open
js
world
is
the
air
we
breathe
right
now,
so
yeah.
A
Yeah
and
you
refer
to
it
as
the
node
collab
summit,
which
I
I
get
historically,
there
are
a
bunch
of
things
happening
this
year
right.
C
That's
true:
that's
a
freudian!
Yes,
it's
yes,
there's
a
the
collab
summit
space
that
waleed
has
been
leading
that
and
leading
particularly
some
of
the
organization
for
the
node.js
project
too.
So
please
reach
out
to
him.
If
you
have
questions
about
the
summit.
B
D
C
C
Joe
that,
on
the
topic
of
the
board
meeting,
we've
been
talking
a
little
bit
about
just
like
making
I'm
sure
that
the
there's
good
conversation
flowing
between
the
the
board
and
the
projects
projects.
If
there's
anything
and
you'd
like
to
share
with
the
with
the
board,
you
know
project
news,
something
to
celebrate.
C
You
know
someone
you
want
to
recognize
whatever.
I'm
sure
that
that
would
be
most
welcome
in
our
in
our
cpc
updates
to
the
board.
A
Great
yeah
and
I'm
I'm
rallying
a
group
of
cpc
folks
to
crash
the
board
party.
So
we
can
come
blasting
in.
B
All
right
and
just
another
update,
I
did
attend
cubecon
last
week,
which
was
interesting
and
lots
of
open
source
community
folks
there
business
folks
nice
to
see
that
sort
of
european
crowd.
So
we
are
exploring
how
we
can
have
a
presence
in
europe
in
the
fall.
I
don't
know
if
that's
on
the
agenda
quite
yet
if
it
was
tagged
there
on
the
summit
but
yeah,
so
that
was
that
was
really
good
and
I
might
be
roping
in
some
of
you
all
on
some
follow-up
conversations
for
people
interested
in
membership
at
openjs.
A
Great
fun
cool-
I
don't
know
if
it
was
before
or
after,
but
I
the
jest
announcement
was
that
happened
within
the
last
two
weeks.
That's
something
we
should
share.
Maybe.
B
A
cpc
meeting
since
it
was
a
working
session
or
did
it
happen
that
day,
I'm
losing
track
of
time,
but
yeah
super
exciting
announcement
with
meta
transferring
the
jess
project
to
openjs.
It
really
has
been
a
community
project,
so
that
was
just
great
to
see
and
really
excited
about
our
new
community
folks
joining
yeah.
It's.
F
A
Cool
all
right
with
all
that
we
can
get
into
some
things
here
looks
like
our
agenda's.
You
know
somewhat
light,
I
don't
know
jory
when
you
put
this
agenda
together.
Did
you
happen
to
check
any
of
the
other
repos?
I
know
there
have
been
a
couple
of
things
lately.
C
I
didn't
I'll
be
honest.
I
I
copied
because
our
our
agenda
has
been
relatively
and
the
agenda
items
have
been
relatively
consistent
meeting
over
a
meeting,
so
I
didn't
go
check
the
and
I
know
there's
not
anything
on
the
standards
working
group.
F
A
Thank
you
michael
and
I
swear
one
of
these
days.
I'll
I'll
get
the
pkg
meat
tooling
up
and
running,
keep
trying
starts
so
the
first
item
on
the
agenda,
while
michael
looks
to
double
check,
we'll
just
get
rolling,
looks
like
we
had
everything
so,
okay,
good
good,
great
and
thank
you
and
thank
you
jerry.
A
The
first
item
is
issue
874.
This
is
cpc
board,
seat
term
limits.
You
know
we
we
we
talked
about
this
a
little
bit.
I
don't
know
if
we
landed
anywhere
or
what
our.
F
I
thought
we
decided
last
time
that
it
was
basically
it
wasn't.
I
my
my
recollection
is.
We
were
just
going
to
close
this
because
we
didn't
necessarily
think
we
needed
to
do
it
at
this
point,
because
the
issue
was
more
around
like
planning
to
get
good
candidates
and
making
sure
we
had
a
good
pipeline
and
nurturing
the
pipeline
versus
the
limits,
and
I
think
in
the
end
it
was
like.
We
could
probably
just
not
do
this
and
focus
on
the
other
stuff.
A
A
The
next
one
is
this:
pull
request:
851
update,
contributor
covenant
code
of
conduct
to
version
2.1.
Oh
my
browser
froze
on
me.
I
know
we
we
talked
about
this.
It
looks
like
there's
been
some
commentary
since
our
last
session.
Here
I
don't
know
if
you're,
fresh
jory
or
jordan
yeah.
C
I
I
can,
I
can
jump
in
on
this
on
this
one,
so
I'm
on
on
last
tuesday,
we
had
a
cpc
working
meeting
with
some
folks
and
I
will
pull
pop
those
notes
there
into
the
zoom
chat.
If
anybody
wants
to
review
that,
we
talked
extensively
about
851
and
852
and
sort
of
kind
of
dissecting,
the
the
problem-
and
there
is
there-
was
agreement
on
the
in
the
working
session.
C
Call
that
for
the
time
being,
we
should
scope
the
document,
the
the
the
contributor
covenant
document
one-to-one
with
the
projects,
so
the
the
the
idea
being
like
there's
this
language.
That's
this
is
project
community
which
which
we
had
some
debate
about.
You
know
what
is
the
scope?
C
What
does
that
mean
for,
for
the
time
being,
until
we
can
get
all
of
the
many
parties
aligned
on
what
it
would
look
like
to
be
able
to
share
information
about
bands
across
across
projects
or
across
the
foundation
that
we
basically
look
at
the
contributor
covenant?
As
you
know,
one
document
one
project
so
electron
has
its.
You
know
copy
and
node
has
its
copy
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
but
it
happens,
of
course,
that
we
have
all
adopted
the
same
copy,
because
that
is
how
we
can
more
effectively.
C
You
know
adjudicate
issues
if
there
is
some
need
for
escalation
or
some
need
for
for
pulling
in
expertise
from
across
the
foundation.
I
realize
that's,
not
the
state
we
want
to
live
in.
We
want
to
live
in
a
state
where
it's
a
bit
more
we're
a
bit
more
able
to
discuss
perhaps
like
and
defensively
defensively.
C
Like
say,
okay,
you
know
an
action
in
project
a
is
also
going
to
warrant
an
action
in
project
b
because
it
was
particularly
egregious
or
problematic,
or
what
have
you,
but
we
just
don't
have
that
system
right
now
and
I'm
afraid
for
us
to
gate
our.
This
is
me
speaking
personally
now
you
know
to
to
to
to
gate
change
based
on
that
bigger
conversation
which
I
think
will
take
some
time
like
I'd
like
I'd
love,
to
see
the
projects
be
able
to
make
this
incremental
change
for
now.
C
So
so
there's
one
thread
which
is
you
know
just
sort
of
like
the
nature
of
the
language
and
the
change
and
then
a
separate
thread
which
and
tierney
and
emily
have
pointed
out
on
851,
which
is
sort
of
how
we
sort
of
keep
track
of
our
changes
as
they
diff
from
the
upstream
contributor
covenant.
Tierney
and
emily
would
like
to
see
us
do
like
a
patch
type
process.
I
think
that's
totally
fine
and
and
have
no
strong
feelings
about
about
that.
That
makes
sense
to
me.
C
So
that
is
that's
sort
of
the
summary
of
the
state
of
851..
I
know
jordan,
had
you
know
additional
comments
that
were
different
and
jordan
I'll
pause
and
let
you
sort
of
intro
your
point.
G
Well,
so
I
I
just
I
hear
that
there
are
folks
who
are
have
a
concern
that
they
would
be
forced
to
ban
someone
from
their
project
that
they
didn't
choose
to
ban.
That's
a
valid
concern.
We've
discussed
many
times,
that's
not
something
we
would
ever
impose
or
require,
and
that's
there's
lots
of
ways
that
or
lots
of
wording
elsewhere.
That
would
prohibit
us
from
interfering
in
individual
projects.
G
In
that
way,
the
concern
I
have
is
that
a
code
of
conduct
says
what
we
may
do,
not
what
we
must
do,
what
we
may
do.
We
must
we're
not
forced
to
ban
somebody
every
time,
there's
a
problem,
but
the
code
of
conduct
allows
us
to
do
so,
and
it
is
that
allowance
that
is
important.
This
is
giving
us
rights
and
powers.
G
This
is
not
requiring
us
to
use
it
to
do
anything
and
as
such,
by
adding
the
qualifier
project,
we
are
removing
our
ability
to
do
anything
beyond
one
single
project,
which
means
if
I,
the
nvm
maintainer,
wants
to
bans
everybody
who's
banned
in
any
other
opengs
foundation
project,
because
I
have
the
belief,
perhaps
informed
by
a
decade
of
experience
that
someone
who's
an
somewhere
is
an
everywhere.
Then
I
am
no
longer
allowed
to
do
that
if
this
lands.
G
E
Toby
yeah,
no
I'm
I'm
just
I
understand
like
you've
mentioned
that
reading
jordan
multiple
times,
and
I
have
no
idea
whether
that
reading
is
actually
correct
or
not,
and
I'd
be
curious
if
anyone
has
a
sense
of
like
how
the
contributing
covenant
acts
from
from
that
perspective
like
if
it
actually
is,
is
your
reading
correct.
G
Or
or
not,
essentially,
just
to
be
clear,
it's
not
a
legal
document
right,
so
there's
the
it
could
be
read
in
either
way,
but
I
don't
believe
that
anyone
could
really
defend
that.
It
requires
us
to
ban
someone
across
multiple
projects.
I
don't
think
that's
a
reasonable
interpretation
and
therefore,
however,
somebody
probably
the
person
being
banned,
could
read
it
with
the
word
project
as
to
say
that
they're
free
to
act
badly
in
one
project
and
not
be
banned
from
any
others,
and
even
though
we
don't
necessarily
have
to
care
about
that
person's
opinion.
G
We
could
hear
their
complaint
and
say
sorry,
we
banned
you
anyway,
or
I
banned
you
anyway
from
my
project
as
it
were.
I
would
prefer
not
to
invite
that
kind
of
rebuttal.
H
Yeah,
that
makes
sense
so
the
reason
so
we
talked
about
this
last
week
in
the
working
session.
One
thing,
jordan,
that
I
think
makes
what
you're
talking
about
complicated
and
maybe
the
answer
is
we
need
to
discuss
this
and
figure
like
discuss.
This
legally
is
jory
brought
up
the
concept
of
so,
if
I'm
say
I've
node
and
I
ban
someone
from
node
for
being
students
for
being
an.
There
are
legal
implications
about
me,
sharing
the
that
activity
with
you
on
nbm
and
so.
H
G
That
is
totally
fair
and
the
ability
to
sort
of
weaken
confidentiality
and
share
that
information
is
totally
unrelated
to
this
discussion
and
that's
something
we
would
have
to
discuss
and
given
that
I
am
personally,
I
have
like
privileged
access
to
confidential
things.
I
would
have
to
manage
it
for
myself,
as
I
already
do,
and
make
sure
that
my
knowledge
here
doesn't
spill
over
into
knowledge
I
shouldn't
have
over
here.
However,
if
I
see
somebody
refer
to
that
ban
publicly,
that's
no
longer
confidential.
B
G
Consequences
occasionally
become
public,
and
at
that
point
I
would
like
the
freedom
to
act
on
them
as
if
I
had
no
privileged
access
to
that
information
and
with
the
word
project
in
there.
I
fear
that
I
wouldn't.
C
So
I
I
think
you
know
both
you
and
toby-
have
kind
of
you
know
said
this,
which
is
that
this
this
code
of
conduct
or
the
contributor
covenant?
It's
it's
not
a
legal
document,
and
it's
basically,
you
know
a
policy
that
we
we
plan
to
to
apply
to
our
community
spaces
and
I
think
core
lines.
Intent
was
for
projects
to
be
able
to
take
this
document
and
as
needed,
sort
of
patch
it
fix
it,
apply
it
it
pragmatically
in
ways
that
be
fit.
C
Befit
projects
right
that
that
that's
their
goal
not
to
be
really
totally
prescriptive.
But
rather
you
know
here's
here's
the
framework,
and
all
of
that,
so
I
don't
believe-
and
I
understand,
like
your
your
reading
from
a
very
strictly
literal
sense-
may
make
you
feel
like
it
limits
your
ability
to
take
action
against
someone
who
is
disruptive
in
your
space.
But
I
again
taking
taking
into
consideration
this.
Isn't
a
this?
Isn't
a
legal
document.
C
You
are
still
as
a
maintainer
free
to
apply
it
as
pragmatically
as
you
as
you
need.
I
don't.
I
don't
think
that
that
qualifier
reduces
your
ability
to
act.
It,
and
certainly
I
think,
you've
got
plenty
of
arguments
you
can
make
if
somebody
wanted
to
try
and
challenge
that
point
of
view-
and
hopefully
you
know
the
other
other
nice
thing-
that
we
have
right
now
and
joy-
better
knock
on
a
bunch
of
wood
right
now
we're
not
having
any
issues.
C
G
G
The
other
benefit,
the
other
main
purpose
of
the
code
of
conduct
documents
in
general.
I
don't
can't
speak
for
ada
specifically,
but
I
assume
is
to
give
enforcers
a
or
moderators
a
document
to
point
at
and
say
this
is
why
I'm
doing
it
and
then
that
deflects
a
lot
of
the
range
of
rage
and
retaliation
for
the
violator
towards
the
document,
which
is
a
lot
harder
thing
to
argue
with,
and
something
that
can't
be
burned
out.
So
it's
you're
right.
G
This
is
sort
of
a
theoretical
situation
where
I
wouldn't
be
technically
barred
from
doing
what
I
want
to
do,
and
I
could
still
do
it,
and
but
it's
this
you
know
the
the
chain
of
logic
here
is
that
I
would
get
more
retaliation
than
I
want
with
this
term
there.
So
it's
not
as
perhaps
urgent
as
I
may
be,
making
it
sound,
but
I
still
think
it's
important.
B
I
would
hope
and
expect
that
an
escalation
process
would
sort
of
you
know,
help
neutralize
that
the
word
project
or
even
community,
I
always
think
of
everybody
as
communities.
You
live
in
multiple
communities.
Openjs
is
not
one
community,
it's
multiple
communities,
so
yeah
and
I
do
think
sort
of
the
sharing
will
be
sort
of
a
long-term
process
on
more
egregious
cases.
B
E
Just
a
tiny
point
on
on
on
the
information
sharing
bit
all
of
this
falls
on
in
the
same
legal
entity
so
for
most
jurisdictions.
I
don't
I
don't
see
how
sharing
information
from
project
to
project
would
actually
be
problematic
in
in
any
way
from
that.
F
C
And
so
this
is
where
you
know
I
think
I
had
to
attend.
I
got
to
attend
a
a
session
during
our
linux
foundation,
all
hands
with
the
legal
team,
and
they
were
saying
you
know.
This
is
one
of
the
spaces
within
all
of
lf
projects
that
are
that
are
kind
of
chewing
up
and
requiring
the
most
legal
resources
these
days,
because
really,
this
is
a
space
of
the
law
field
of
the
law
where
we
just
like
it.
Nothing
has
been
tested
like
we
don't
exactly.
C
First
off
there's
lots
of
people
who
threaten
lawsuits,
nobody
brings
them
it's
unclear
under
what
grounds
a
lawsuit
would
be
brought
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
But
because
of
that
ambiguity,
and
because
of
that
uncertainty-
and
here
I'm
just
going
to
speak
to
the
united
states,
because
that's
that's
where
I'm
based
and
that's
what
I
know,
but
because
of
that,
it's
probably
causing
us
as
open
source,
maintainers
and
leaders
to
be
more
cautious
because
we
don't.
C
You
know,
necessarily
know
how
something
would
play
out
if,
in
fact,
that
jerk
did
bring
a
suit
because
they
were
banned
from
from
a
project.
And
again
the
the
threat
of
it
seems
to
loom
much
larger
than
than
anything
has
happened
in
actual
practice.
C
So
I
think
one
thing
we
could
do
in
addition
to
what
we've
talked
about
for
a
while,
which
is
like,
let's
find
some
great
moderation
and
conflict.
You
know
mediation,
trainings
and
stuff
for
project
communities
to
take
advantage
of,
and
we
could
maybe
also
ask
at
some
point
for
one
of
our
awesome
legal
council
members
to
just
do
a
quick
sort
of
like
what
do.
C
You
really
need
to
be
concerned
about,
if
you're,
if
you're,
serving
in
this
role,
if
you're
taking
a
decision
to
to
make
an
action,
and
that
might
help
kind
of
highlight
and-
and
you
know,
relieve
pressure.
E
Yeah,
I'm
also
assuming
folks,
would
have
legal
insurance
through
their
employer
to
some
degree.
If
something
like
this
did
happen.
So
you
know
like
this
is
something
you're
really
concerned
about.
Maybe
you
should
actually
ask
your
employer
being
self-employed.
I
have
legal
insurance
for
those
issues
through
my
own
company,
so
I
mean
I,
I
assume
that
you're
probably
protected
that
way
too.
F
I'm
not
sure
that
that's
a
fair
assumption
for
people
who
volunteer
as
a
side
right
like
if,
if
you're
paid
and
it's
a
core
part
of
your
job,
I
think
that
I
still
wouldn't
be
sure,
but
I'd
be
like
yeah,
maybe
but
like
for
people
who
are
like
I'm
doing
this
on
my
own
time.
I
don't
think
that
they
would.
G
B
This
was
a
topic
at
a
linux
foundation.
Member
summit
people
were
wondering
the
same
thing.
I
think
what
we
heard
is
what
jory
said:
there's
a
lot
of
threats
of
litigation,
but
there
hasn't
actually
been.
We
haven't
seen
much
and
the
linux
foundation
and
openjs
has
legal
resources
that
we,
you
know,
have
been
brought
in
early
and
it
really
sort
of
mitigated
a
lot
of
things.
B
Someone
did
say
from
github
that
you
know
suggested.
Perhaps
we
have
if
it
ever
were,
to
become
a
problem.
We
could
have
like
a
legal
defense
fund,
for
example,
in
the
open
source
industry,
but
right
now
it's
hasn't
seemed
to
play,
has
hasn't
really
played
out
that
way.
F
Yeah
I
mean
I
back
to
the
original
point
that
jordan
had,
and
maybe
this
is
like
a
follow-on,
because
I
know
we
don't
want
to
block
things.
But,
like
you
know,
if
we
talked
about
amendments,
something
that
says
you
know
you
know,
despite
having
adopted
the
you
know
the
the
common
code
of
conduct,
nothing
prevents
a
project
from
including
you
know,
behavior
outside
of
their
own
project
and
their
determination.
F
That
seems
to
me,
like
it,
wouldn't
be
terribly
that
that
wouldn't
be
controversial
like
that's
much
different
than
a
central
group
is
going
to
tell
projects
what
you're
going
to
do.
That's
just
clarifying
that
this
is
not
intended
to
limit
their
their
scope
in
terms
of
what
the
factors
that
they
wanted
to
include
right.
B
Yeah
and
I
think
we
want
our
communities
to
be
safe
spaces,
so
you
know,
I
think
that
that
I
would
see
that
as
a
modification
as
the
contributor
covenant
gave
direction,
if
you
need
to
modify
it
to
suit
your
particular
organization.
You're
you're
welcome
to
do
so
and
document
that.
F
Yeah,
it
might
not
even
be
a
modification,
it
just
might
be
a
clarification
of
our
interpretation
to
prevent
the
the
case
that
jordan
was
talking
about
where
somebody
said
well,
no,
this
limits
your
scope
right.
It's
like
no
we're
not
saying
that
it
limits
the
scope.
It's
just
saying
this
is
the
scope
that
the
project
has
agreed
to
and
the
any
that
we
asked.
This
is
the
scope
we
ask
the
projects
to
agree
to,
but
they're
free
to
you
know
to
consider
other
sources
of
information
if
they
want
to.
G
I
mean
if,
if
I'm
the
only
one
who
would
prefer
to
who's
leaning
towards
blocking
the
pr
on
it,
then
we
don't
have
to
block
the
pr
on
it,
but
it
just
it
seems
like
an
important
default
messaging
and
I
think
the
that
the
it
is
a
better
default
messaging
that
there
is.
There
is
known
there
that
there
is
no
explicit
limit
to
the
consequences
of
shitty
behavior,
even
if
there
is
no
requirement
that
that
that
that
punishment
be
expansive.
G
So
I
would
still
like
to
see
that
term
my
qualifier
removed,
even
if
this
pr
lands
with
it
like,
in
other
words,
I
think
that
the
in
terms
of
the
opposite
dangers
right,
like
the
the
danger
of
people
acting
badly,
is
far
worse
than
the
danger
of
the
foundation
overstepping
and
and
trying
to
push
a
project
to
ban
someone
who's
a
not
a
good
person
anyway.
G
E
E
E
Contentious
that
one
potentially
is,
and
so
we're
saying,
let's
not
change
that
thing
now,
because
it
is
contentious-
and
I
understand
your
point
of
saying
actually,
this
is
problematic,
but
my
reply
to
that
would
be
well
in
that
case,
let's
have
a
different
conversation
about
this
and
it's
it's
made
weird
by
the
fact
that
there
are
two
different
versions
of
2.0
which
is
what's
creating
this
whole
sort
of.
Like
weird
conversation,
that's
been
ongoing,
agreed
sarah.
H
Yeah,
I
think
that
suffering
is
a
separate
conversation
is
a
good
idea
personally,
and
it
seems
like
I'm
in
the
maybe
on
the
minority
on
this,
but
I
think
limiting
the
here's.
What
I've
observed
is
an
inequality
in
resources
across
projects.
H
Some
projects
like
node,
have
a
really
thoughtful
and
well
thought
out
process,
as
well,
as,
I
believe,
have
thought
through
the
representation
process
too,
on
how
to
respond
to
coc
issues.
I
know
we
have
lots
of
other
projects
that
have
less
resources
and
don't
haven't,
had
the
opportunity
to
think
through
what
a
diverse
coc
board
would
look
like,
and
I
could
really.
H
H
So
I
think
it's
worth.
I
think
it
is
worth
a
longer
conversation
about
from
reading
the
word.
A
Yeah,
so
I
think
if,
if
we
kind
of
align
that
with
toby's
comment,
we
should
try
to
land
this
pr
with
with
minimal
changes
to
or
no
changes
to,
the
2.1
version
and
then
perhaps
continue
the
conversation.
And
I
think
there
are
a
couple
other
conversations
we
should
have
as
well
around
the
last
this
in
terms
of
moderation
and
whatnot.
So
we
could
spin
that
off
into
a
different
issue
or
pull
request.
A
F
Yeah
that
definitely
sounds
right,
and
then
there
there
may
be.
One
way
is
like
removing
the
word,
but
there
might
be
other
ways
of
like
adding
or
clarification
to
how
it
applies
or
whatever,
but
it
seems
like
to
definitely
as
toby
says,
like
especially
it's
kind
of
like,
let's
land
without
modifications
and
then
propose
a
modification
right
makes
a
lot
of
sense.
A
Again,
I
think
even
how
we
modify
it
is,
is
also
debate
two
or
at
least
conversation
okay,
if
somebody
wouldn't
mind
dropping
that
sort
of
little
summary
in
there.
I
don't
know
who
could
help
us
move
it
forward,
making
sure
that
we
are
consistent
with
2.1
and
go
from.
There
would
be
great.
C
And
I,
I
think,
we're
all
good,
just
kind
of
back
to
like
the
the
the
how
of
the
change
we're
all
good
with
sort
of
like
maintaining
patch
files
and
doing
it
that
way.
Great
okay,.
I
A
Right
on
next
up
is
issue
826.
A
This
is
a
focus
on
javascript
security.
At
openjs
I
sent
in
an
application
for
a
collab
space
and
jewelry.
C
And,
and-
and
I'm
supposed
to
do
the
next
thing
which
I
had
to
go
figure
out-
what
the
next
thing
I
was
supposed
to
do
is
because
brian
did
this
before
and
now
prime
is
gone.
So
I
believe
that
that
the
next
step
is
for
me
to
send
this
around
to
the
cpc
as
a
call
for
approval
to
spin
this
up,
and
we
will
get
to
practice
this
again.
We
can.
A
Excellent
cool
cool
so
not
much
to
talk
about
on
this
one,
yet
we'll
keep
it
moving
forward.
Next
up
is
license
check,
support
and
tooling.
I
don't
see
anything
recent
here.
It
looked
like
maybe
somebody
was
typing
or
maybe
they're,
just
getting
ready
to
type
something.
I
don't
know.
If
there's
any
news
here.
B
Oh
good
rob,
I
hope
you
have
an
update
from
my
update.
No
it
we
were
we're
next
on
the
feature
list,
just
having
some
delays
from
some
linux
foundation.
Staffing
concerns
did
you
know.
Shubra
was
leading
that
and
unfortunately,
yeah
okay.
C
I
will
also
report
that
we're
down
to
just
three
projects
remaining
on
the
old,
open,
js
foundation
and
easy
or
in
cla
infrastructure.
So
we
should
be
we're
almost
totally
wrapped
up
with
that,
which
was
quite
the
feat
yeah
great.
A
Good
news
last
one
on
the
agenda
here,
then,
is
clarify
requirements
around
coc
violation.
I
don't
know
if
we
really
have
any
news
on
this
puppy
either.
A
No
big
deal
got
lots
of
stuff
to
do
so.
That's
good,
so
cool,
we'll
keep
we'll
keep
this
one
open
and
as
we
progress
through
this
coc
and
moderation,
stuff
we'll
get
to
these.
C
On
the
since
we
we
did
kind
of
tackle
some
coc
related
things
today
and
on
the
working
session,
which
has
been
really
fruitful.
There
are
two
additional
prs,
one
which
is
quite
old:
it's
a
great
grandparent
pr
on
the
openjs
foundation,
cpc
repo,
it's
7
49.
I
believe-
and
this
is
around
process
changes
about
a
year
ago.
There
were
some
comments
on
on
updates.
C
We
just
revisited
it
briefly
in
a
working
session
to
confirm
that
that
is
still
the
way
we
want
to
go
and
there
so
we'll
address
the
the
comments
that
were
left
by.
I
think
mateo
and
michael,
to
address
the
necessary
changes
there
and
I
hope
we
can
land
that
soon.
So,
if
y'all,
assuming
you
see,
the
changes
come
in
and
your
plus
one,
if
you
want
to
thumbs
it
up
and
all
that
sort
of
stuff
that'd
be
great.
The
second
piano.
E
May
I
just
have
a:
I
should
have
a
question
about
this.
One
isn't
isn't
it?
Oh,
a
lot
of
a
duplicate
was
the
one
that
we're
just
discussing
before
that
I'm
not
making
any
progress
on.
Because,
if
that's
the
case
then
maybe
I
can
stop
having
to
deal
with
that,
one
that
I'm
not
making
any
progress
on.
C
That
is
a
great
question.
Let
me
jump
to
the
other
one,
the
other
pr.
C
Let's
jump
back
to
that
question,
so
the
other
pr
is
one
that
christian
opened
on
tuesday
of
last
week,
just
clarifying
and
the
process
through
which
we
consider
a
a
change
to
the
coc
document
and
there's
a
minor
request
for
a
change
from
emily,
but
I'm
sure
we
can
take
that
and
amend
and
move
forward.
So
please
take
a
look
at
that.
It
just
sort
of
paves
the
cow
path.
So
to
speak,
which
is
a
weird
phrase
I
made
do.
I.
C
No
I've
got
a
large
jar
of
like
americanisms
that
I
items
idioms
that
I
owe
toby
for
okay,
so
going
back
to
toby's
question
whether
786
and
749
are
duplicative.
C
The
purpose
behind
749
was
to
remove
some
redundancy
we
had
and
make
it
a
bit
more
streamlined
for
a
reporter.
What
would
happen
you
know
and
how
the
response
team
would
be
able
to
proceed.
C
This
came
from
a
challenge
that
we
had
when
there
was
a
issue
that
was
escalated
by
a
project
to
the
to
the
cpc
response
squad.
If
you
will-
and
we
had
a
fairly
large
group
of
people
who
are
interested
in
serving
on
that
community
or
that
committee,
it
became
very.
It
was
very
hard
to
coordinate
across
time
zones
all
of
those
people.
It
was
kind
of
kind
of
hectic,
and
so
we
decided
you
know
that
that
was
not
ideal.
That
wasn't
great.
C
Let's,
let's
revise
the
revised
process,
makes
it
clear
that
there's
basically
one
group
of
people
who
will
respond
to
an
to
a
report
and
the
way
that
we
will
tackle.
It
is
more
small
group,
first
expanding
to
the
whole
committee,
if
necessary,
because
the
committee
does
not
agree
with
the
smaller
group's
decision
or
the
reporter
is
unsatisfied
with
the
outcome
of
the
the
smaller
group
decision.
So
it
was
more
of
a
way
to
address
agility
and
coordination.
E
C
C
A
So
that's
all
of
the
agenda.
The
only
other
thing
that
is
on
here
is
to
look
at
the
dates
and
reminders
which
reminds
me
of
dates,
including
that
the
cpc
chair
term
ended
about
a
month
ago.
So
I'm
going
to
look
up
the
last
issue,
which
I
think
I
created
and
open
up
a
cpc
chair
issue
to
yeah,
get
that
going.
C
And
I,
I
believe,
just
kind
of
related
to
terms
and
roles
and
stuff
and
the
seat
board
seat
currently
occupied
by
michael,
you
is,
is
up
at
the
end
of
july
or
the
end
of
june
end
of
june.
First
time.
A
The
end
of
july-
and
it
is,
there
are
a
few
things
that
are
open.
Then
I
will
grab
this
link.
It
is
the
director
2,
election
or
term
ends
july
31st
and
additionally,
cpc
impact
voting.
Member
selection
ends
then
term
ends.
Then
cpc
non-impact
voting
member
term
also
ends.
Then,
and
that's
that's
it.
I
guess
those
those
three
items
and
our
reason
for
having
them
all
at
the
same
time
was
that
you
know
it
was
after
the
event,
and
we
thought
we
could.
A
You
know
drum
up
some
excitement
and
interest
from
hanging
out
with
people
in
person.
B
We
should
probably
give
those
folks
more
of
a
heads
up
on
the
timing
on
the
project
side
yeah
another
little
news.
You
can
use
yeah.
A
Yeah
we're
almost
a
month
out,
so
I
agree
with
you
start
speculating.
C
Just
the
last
thing
I
have
is
gratitude
for
each
and
every
one
of
you
and
all
that
you
do
for
our
projects.
C
It's
genuine,
though
I
don't
think
I
have
anything
else,
just
looking
forward
to
seeing,
hopefully
as
many
of
you
as
possible
in
in
austin,
live
band.
Karaoke
super
psyched
about
that.
B
B
E
A
No
priority
for
sure
yeah
tell
your
friends
to
meet
us
in
austin.
I
just
booked
my
flight
and
hotel.
I
think
yesterday
that
was
a
bad
idea,
I'm
about
a
mile
away,
but
you
know
I
can
use
those
exercises.
F
B
C
Cool
all
right,
penis
and
slack
if
y'all
need
anything
yeah.