►
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
Boy
is
this
tonight:
am
I
streaming
because
I'm
getting
these
warnings
from
Firefox
that
I
can't
there's
one
on
YouTube?
For
me,
okay,
great,
that's
a
great
way
to
start
a
meeting,
I
think
it's
my
Wi-Fi
or
something
as
preventing
everything,
but
great
I'm,
glad
to
hear
that
we
are
streaming
so
welcome
to
this
week's
and
this
year's
and
this
decades
first
cross-project
council
meeting
thanks
everyone
for
joining
today
as
the
1st
or
the
7th
of
January
and
the
issue
for
the
agenda
is
436
and,
let's
start
off
with
some
announcements,
and
things
like
that.
C
Thank
you
for
doing
that,
and
then
the
second
thing
is
that
we
have
an
AMA
tomorrow,
yes,
tomorrow
morning
with
with
the
modules
working
group,
so
please
dial
in
for
that
or
submit
questions
to
our
panelists
and
I.
Think
that
will
be
a
lot
of
fun
and
a
bonus.
This
is
just
a
great
opportunity
if
any
of
you
set
a
new
year's
resolution
to
be
better
note,
takers
to
help
take
back
today,
so
yeah,
that's.
A
It
right
yeah
I,
concur,
please
more
note.
Takers,
the
better
I'll
add
a
couple
more
things
here
briefly
and
then
we
can
check
on
like
the
board
or
anything
else.
I
just
want
to
say
that
I
created
a
cross
project
council
slack
channel
in
the
open,
Jas
foundation,
slack
org,
so
you
know
that's
the
place
where
we
can
kind
of
ping
each
other
or
whatnot
I've
been
using
it
to
ping
folks
on
PRS
or
reviews
that
they
may
need
to
review.
A
A
Collaborator
summits
and
I
wanted
to
just
kind
of
plant
that
seed
for
folks
to
start
thinking
about
their
projects
or
projects
that
they
may
know
of
or
work
with,
to
think
about
what
could
be
beneficial
to
them.
We're
trying
to
think
about
ways
that
projects
could
collaborate
or
help
each
other
in
a
collaborative
summit
or
maybe
there's
overlap,
and
things
like
that.
A
So
we
should
have
some
stuff
soon,
where
you
know
github
issues
where
we
can
start
to
draw
up
ideas,
and
maybe
some
cross
collaboration
and
things
that
we
could
start
to
think
through
and
work
on
and
I
also
wanted
to
highlight
the
travel
fund.
So
if
you
are
in
a
project-
and
you
know,
the
limitation
for
you
being
involved
in
the
collaborative
summit-
is
travel
resource
for
us.
A
D
A
The
first
issue
on
the
agenda
is
the
webdriver
IO
project.
Charter
Review
we've
got
a
number
of
folks
commenting
that
they
approve
and
I.
You
know
perhaps
relatedly
I
don't
know.
If
we
want
to
jump
into
the
project
charter
review
and
process
discussions,
does
it
make
sense
to
get
into
those
before
we
specifically
talk
about
a
particular
project
charter
with
you
what.
C
We've
already
approved
one
charter,
so
my
assumption
was
that,
because
this
has
certainly
met
the
requirement
in
terms
of
having
no
objections
and
having
the
certainly
the
time
frame
has
gone
by
then
I
think
the
web
driver's
project
charter
itself
and
unless
anybody
does
have
an
objection,
should
be
approved.
I.
A
B
C
C
A
B
Right,
the
the
context
was
at
some
point,
I
think
Brian
was
asking
about
the
term
of
the
directors.
It
is
laid
out
in
our
governance
that
it's
a
one-year
cycle,
but
the
remaining
question
was
just
we
adjusted
the
initial
first-year
directors,
sorry
CPC
representatives
I
think
to
let
them
come
to
the
like,
hopefully
to
line
up
with
the
collaborator
summit,
and
since
we
adjusted
that
first
initial
term
of
the
voting
CPC
representatives,
the
question
was
like:
should
we
do
something
similar
with
the
directors
or
just
leave
it?
As
is.
A
B
C
Well,
which
is
which
is
gonna,
be
easier
for
us
to
sort
of
remember
and
maintain
like
so
we
don't
find
ourselves
in
a
situation
where
oh
crap,
you
know
Jory's
term
expired
two
months
ago.
We
should
have
had
an
option.
You
know
that's
why
I
think,
maybe
the
only
like
I
could
see
us
accidentally
doing
that
for
sure.
D
If
I
can
make
a
suggestion,
generally
speaking
on
the
board
member
companies
when
they
come
on
when
they
have
board
of
director
representatives
their
terms
expire
at
the
end
of
the
year,
and
it
can
be
helpful
from
the
continuity
perspective
to
have
some
amount
of
staggering
and
the
directors.
So
if
we
were
to
pick
a
specific
date
to
say
this
is
the
point
at
which
the
CPC
directors
terms
begin
and
end
having
it
be.
Mid-Year
might
be
useful
from
a
process
perspective,
because
then
there's
already
experience
on
the
board
that
carries
over.
D
A
B
D
A
D
B
The
other
aspect
of
that
is
if
people
want
to
run
for
one
or
both
or
like
I,
think
we
had
some
of
the
same
discussion
in
the
node
one
it
whether
we
were
going
to
elect
like
the
CPC
representative
and
the
director
at
the
same
time,
and
like
you
know
if
somebody
ran
for
one
didn't
get
that
would
they
run
for
the
other
or
so
like
there's
advantages
and
disadvantages
of
having
them
be
at
the
same
time
for
different
times
as
well.
That's
the
other
thing
to
think
about
well,.
E
Are
the
numbers
that
we
have
for
activating
that
seat,
reasonable
and
then
I
guess
C
would
be?
Do
we
even
want
the
two
still
associated,
because
we
can
make
requests
and
attempt
to
alter
bylaws
or
whatever
to
change
how
that
representation
works?
I,
think
that's
something
that's
worth
thinking
about
in
considering
this
process,
I'll.
D
B
E
That
they're,
interconnected
Michael
would
be.
If
we
want
this
other
position,
would
we
want
it
to
be
offset?
We
want
it
to
be
elected
at
the
same
time
if
we
want
it
to
be
elected
at
the
same
time
or
their
bylaws
changes
that
we
need
to
try
to
push
through
now
like
well,
they
they
do
seem
somewhat
orthogonal.
I.
Do
think
that
there
is
something
to
be
said
about
like
if
we
are
electing
all
of
these
different
positions.
Keeping
that
in
mind
yeah.
B
Although
I
think
you
know,
for
example,
if
we
spin
that
up
mid-year,
you
know
we're
just
faced
with
the
same
decision
that
we
have
in
this
case.
Do
we
want
to
align
it?
Well,
you
know
for
whatever
date
we
pick
do
we
want
to
align
it
with
that
date,
or
do
we
want
to
have
it
be
offset
so
I'm,
not
sure
trying
to
figure
that
out
as
part
of
the
same
thing
helps
us
in
the
long
run,
I.
A
B
E
E
E
There's
another
way
in
which
we
could
look
at
this,
where
we
have
like
three
potential
seats
that
we
need
to
figure
out,
how
we
wish
to
allocate
them,
and
we
should
figure
out
what
and
how
we
want
to
allocate
them
and
then
decide
what
time
and
when
we
would
do
the
elections
for
them
and
in
these
two
different
circumstances
is
just
kind
of
like
an
order
of
operations.
So
I
think
that
if
we
approach
it
that
we're
gonna
reuse,
the
two
existing
seats
exactly
the
way
they
were
used
this
way
and
pick
a
time.
E
Then
that
makes
sense-
and
we
can
add
a
third
seat
later
if
we
want
to
holistically
think
about
the
representation
that
we
want,
who
will
be
in
those
seats
and
why
we
are
doing
that,
then
I
think,
starting
with
the
dates
is
unnecessary.
We
should
start
with
what
the
chairs
are
even
going
to
be
for
okay,.
D
Said
throw
all
of
this
I
mean
I,
agree.
There's
we're
trying
to
optimize
I
think
a
lot
of
things
all
at
the
same
time.
I
can
make
a
suggestion.
I'd
say,
let's
just
say
for
this
year:
do
both
elections
this
name
date
and
then,
if
the
third
seed
ends
up
getting
activated,
then
the
discussion
can
be
had
over
whether
or
not
it
makes
sense
to
stagger
them.
D
I
will
say
this
having
run
elections
in
the
past,
it's
generally
easier
to
run
fewer
elections
per
year
than
more
elections
per
year,
and
you
tend
to
have
a
better
selection
of
candidates.
When
everybody
knows
exactly
when
you
know
one
seats
are
going
to
be
available
so
there's
there
are
some
both
process
and
selection
advantage
selection,
quality
advantages
to
running
the
election.
At
the
same
time,
offset
from
the
corporate
boundary
corporate
member
boundary
good.
A
Thank
you
I'm
on
it
and
while
I'm
doing
that,
I'll
just
say
you
know
why
don't
we
just
drop
a
note
in
here?
We
don't
need
to
close
this
issue
now.
You
know
we
could
even
say
you
know
we're
still
deciding
between
concurrent
elections
or
staggering
and
then
create
an
issue
linked
to
it
that
we
work
through
the
director
roles.
Reba's
with
us.
E
Yeah
I
guess
one
thing:
one
thing
that
I
would
I
would
I
would
say
on
there
that's
worth
mentioning
too.
It
feels
like,
and
that's
fine
that
we're
acting
as
though
we're
keeping
the
second
director
seat
specifically
for
the
node.js
project
right
now,
but
it
kind
of
feels
like
that
decision
has
just
kind
of
been
made
and
not
actively
discussed.
Actually.
C
B
My
mind
it's
strictly:
when
does
the
first
term
end
right,
like
the
it
you
know
by
you
know,
without
any
anything
else,
I
think
the
only
assumption
would
be
a
year
from
the
original
election,
because
that's
what
the
the
governance
says,
but
what
we're
saying?
Okay,
when
does
the
first
term,
for
you
know
myself
and
Chris
end
I,
don't
think,
there's
any
assumptions
beyond
that:
okay,.
A
F
B
A
D
F
B
B
D
B
B
B
A
B
In
my
mind
that
one,
like
you,
know
the
discussion
around
getting
that
third
one
was
having
built
an
individual
membership
program
which
we
haven't
done
yet
so
I,
don't
know
just
just
me,
but
my
thinking
would
be
well.
We
we
kind
of,
have
to
show
that
we've
built
a
program
and
met
that
the
the
target
number
now,
whether
the
target
numbers
right
or
wrong,
or
whatever
you
at
least
need
to
have
a
program
with
some
some
number
of
people
in
it
to
make
it
make
sense
right.
C
I
would
suggest
that
we
take
it
up
when
perhaps
Robin
is
available
to
join
us
to
talk
about,
because
that's
sort
of
a
longer-term
organizational
strategy
that
the
foundation
might
choose
to
embark
on
and
if
that's
a,
if
that's
a
cost
of
both
the
CPC
and
and
the
board,
want
to
take
up
and
prioritize
for
2020,
then
let's,
let's
do
it
and
not
lose
that
thread.
But
if
we,
if
we
truly
don't
think
that
this
is
gonna
fit
into
our
plans
for
the
next
year,
it's
probably
something
we
should
just
close.
C
D
Yeah
and
just
maybe
to
be
to
be
clear
on
this,
the
board
has
basically
already
said
that
this
is
part
of
their
vision
when
they
approve
the
bylaws.
So
it's
been
part
of
every
every
version
of
the
bylaws
it's
been
approved,
so
the
question
really
is:
if
there's
going
to
be
any
change
in
direction,
then
that
you
know,
then
the
CPC
certainly
can
make
that
proposal,
and
it's
definitely
something
we're
thinking
about,
but
either
way
I
mean
this
is.
This
is
part
of
the
long-term
vision
having
the
individual
representatives.
B
D
Absolutely
and
that's
I
mean
this-
is
a
heavy
lift,
yep
yeah
they're
targets,
if
I
remember
correctly
miles,
maybe
remember
better
than
I
do
but
I
want
to
say
it's
like
2,000
numbers
before
the
seat,
activate
yeah,
fairly
substantial
lift.
Now
with
that
said,
I
think
there's
quite
a
bit
of
interest
out
there
in
foundation
activities
and
what
the
foundation
is
doing.
So
you
know
I,
don't
think
that
number
was
chosen
lightly,
but
at
the
same
time
that's
it
will
require
a
substantial
amount
of
effort
to
get
driven
through
and.
E
You
know,
question
that
assumption
and
revisit
it.
If
we
as
a
group,
don't
have
anyone
who's
actively
looking
at
moving
forward
with
this
program,
one
thing
we
could
do
is
ask
the
board:
hey.
Is
this
a
program
you're
even
interested
in
seeing
happened,
and
if
you
know
no,
one
from
the
CPC
is
actively
wanting
to
work
on
this
and
the
board
and
foundation
staff
don't
want
to
actively
work
on.
It
I
think
it's
very
reasonable
for
us
to
revisit
that
assumption
that
we
want
to
tie
that.
Other
chair
to
this
group.
A
A
B
Now,
though,
the
one
thing
I'm
not
hundred
percent
clear
on
what
we
agreed
to
was
it
one
year,
I
heard
miles,
say
one
year
was
that
one
year
from
the
election,
or
did
we
want
to
do
like
six
months
like
mid-year,
which
would
be
I?
Think
not
quite
a
year
or
something
I'd
have
to
look
at
when
the
election
took
place
and
everything
but
or.
D
So
I
would
suggest
in
this
case
I
think
the
simplest
we
can
go
is
a
staggered
election
between
voting
members
and
director.
After
thinking
about
some
workers.
Don't
the
voting
members
choose
the
director,
so
we
need
to
have
the
voting
members
established
before
they
can
choose
a
director
yeah
yep.
So
if
I
can
make
a
suggestion,
maybe
like
July
1st
there's
a
target
date.
So
it's
a
perfect
six-month
offset.
G
B
A
A
A
G
G
Yeah
so
I
actually
added
some
comments
here.
We
discussed
this
at
the
collapsible
and
Montreal
sort
of
had
some
misunderstanding
about
what
we're
talking
about
and
then
agreed
that
this
document
was
actually
guidance
based
off
of
the
IP
policy
and
I
think
there
was
general
agreement
that
we
should
therefore
use
that
document
to
make
something
for
projects
and
developers
to
be
as
easy
and
seamless
as
possible,
and
that
Brian
and
I
we're
had
volunteered
to
go
work
on
that.
G
G
The
second
one
would
be
to
be
prescriptive
so
that
a
folks
shouldn't
have
to
think
about
what
it
is
that
they
might
or
might
not
do,
but
just
basically
do
the
thing
and
then
offer
third
was
too
often
clear:
gaiden
pacifist
you
content
and
forgetting
was
migrated
content
and
last
one
was
to
offer,
maybe
in
a
different
document
or
in
a
non
published
document,
the
ability
for
projects.
I
want
to
do
something
really
special
to
reach
out
to
Brian
for
do
to
sort
of
figure
out.
If
that
was
okay
or
not
yep,.
D
Yeah
and
Toby
all
that
looks
great
I'm,
certainly
happy
to
work
with
you
on
this
it.
Given
that
I
wrote,
the
I
wrote
the
first
one.
It's
helpful
to
have
somebody
else,
he's
really
diving
in
and
poking
holes
and
the
things
that
I.
Maybe
it
was
assuming
that
shouldn't
have
been
assumed
or
which
maybe
weren't
just
clear
as
they
could
have
been
so
I
really
appreciate
you
doing
all.
G
A
All
right
great,
maybe
you
could
just
add
another
comment
there
to
say
that
you
two
are
going
to
work
on.
That
is
that
right,
you've
got
your
last
comment,
but
is
it
clear
that
yeah
I
can
do
this
great
excellent?
Thank
you
appreciate
it
all
right.
So
thank
you.
Moving
on
to
the
next
issue
is
the
poll
requests
for
1/3,
which
adds
a
copy
of
the
contributor
covenants.
Coc
text
and
I
know
we
kind
of
like
shedded
on
this
a
bunch.
A
The
direction
from
the
contributor
covenant
is
to
inline
it,
so
that
was
kind
of
why
we
landed
where
we
were.
The
larger
discussion
is
around
a
COC
code
of
conduct
working
group
to
kind
of
work
through
some
of
the
moderation
aspects
of
this.
So
I,
don't
I
can't
recall
exactly
where
we
landed,
but
I
was
under
the
impression
that
we
should
you
know
if
there
are
no
blockers,
we
should
land
this
and
then
work
through.
You
know
the
finer
points
in
a
working
group.
B
So
I
guess
like
looking
at
the
issue.
We
have
one
person,
who's,
objected
and
so
I
guess
like
either.
We
need
to
say
we
need
to
I
think
we
either
need
to
like
continue
the
consensus
seeking
project
process
to
see.
If
you
know
we
can
all
come
to
the
same
agreement
or
decide
that
we've
exhausted
that,
and
we
probably
at
that
point-
need
our
a
vote
of
the
voting
members
to
decide
we're
just
we're
gonna
move
forward
with
it.
Despite
the
objection
so.
F
I
I
want
to
clear
I'm
the
person-
that's
not
in
favor
of
it.
I
wouldn't
call
it
call
it
an
objection.
I
would
have
left
an
X
on
the
PR.
If
that
were
the
case
I,
it
seems
clear,
like
this
is
not
an
issue
worth
having
this
much
process
about
I.
Think
but
like
yeah
I'm
I'm,
not
comfortable
in
lining
the
text.
I
think
we
shouldn't
do
that
and
but
you
know
so,
I'm
not
gonna
like
that.
Yeah.
E
F
So
my
understanding
is
that
it's
not
that
strong,
it's
a
suggestion
that
you
do
inline
it,
but
either
way
I
mean
just
because
the
person
that
wrote
the
code
of
conduct
thinks
that
it
should
be
inline.
That
doesn't
mean
that
that
must
be
true.
I,
don't
agree
with
that.
Like
I'm,
not
gonna
like
I
was
like
I
said:
I'm,
not
gonna,
be
ejected
Mac.
You
like
go
ahead
and
merge
it
with
the
text
in
mind,
but,
like
you
know,
I'm
just
making
sure
it's
noted
that
I
don't
think
we
should
do
that.
H
H
F
H
F
B
A
You
sorry
yep
excellent,
so
the
next
issue
is
the
foundation
project.
Landscape,
I'm
gonna
suggest
that
we
skip
that
because
we
only
have
a
few
minutes
and
just
touch
on
the
next
issue,
which
is
ads
proposal
for
charter
submission
and
review
for
one,
because
I'm
not
I'm,
not
sure
that
you
know
we're
already.
I
think
miles
even
said
this.
We're
already.
A
C
C
B
C
A
The
just
an
effort
to
kind
of
keep
getting
some
things
done
here:
I'm
just
gonna
jump
to
the
next
one,
which
is
issued
four
hundred,
which
is
point
of
contact
for
onboarding
I
know.
Mike
Samuel
has
opened
pull
request,
which
is
four
to
two
which
has
I
think
of
several
reviews.
Already
sorry
approvals.
A
That
brings
us
the
248.
Do
we
want
to
touch
on
anything
else
here,
I'm
trying
to
think
of
things
we
can
quickly
hit
jumping
to
the
responsible
security
disclosures
I
was
looking
at
this
earlier
Michael
I
know
the
security
working
group
has
emerged
and
their
work,
and
the
request
was
to
flesh
that
out
further
for
the
OpenGL
foundation.
Yes,.
B
B
They
reached
out
to
me
at
the
same
time,
because
I
hadn't,
caught
up
with
all
the
issues
and
they're,
basically
saying
hey,
is
it
time
to
and
start
working
with
us
at
the
CPC
level,
so
I
just
need
to
connect
with,
and
the
name
is
escaping
me
right,
the
second
but
the
person
who's
who
did
the
first
draft
for
the
package.
Maintenance
team
and
you
know,
will
decide
whether
you
know
he's
how
it
has
enough
information
to
draft
to
first
cut
it.
A
I
D
Like
it
here,
so
let
me
look
into
that
and
get
back
to
you.
Christian
I,
don't
know
if
we
have
I
could
just
not
be
aware
of
it,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
have
that
alias
set
up.
I
will
say
that
in
the
past,
we've
run
into
some
issues.
With
these
the
questions
where
we
can
help
with
foundation
events,
but
if
it's
not
a
foundation
event
and
there's
a
visa
issue,
then
the
foundation
can't
help
with
that.
I
D
I
B
The
critical
thing
is
is
we're:
in
the
new
year
we
need
to
have
have
something
in
the
open,
GS
repos.
That
says
how
people
apply,
because
there's
there's
already
been
an
application
and
there's
confusion
about
how
people
apply
at
this
point.
So
we
need
to
complete
the
transition
enough
so
that
people
can
actually
make
those
applications.
You
know,
without
necessarily
changing
any
of
the
process.
Yeah.
E
I
A
All
right,
so,
let's,
let's
move
to
a
private
session,
then
I
will
stop
the
livestream
and
I
guess.