►
From YouTube: OpenJS Foundation CPC Meeting 2019-11-19
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
B
C
D
A
I
do
have
one
update
from
Brian,
and
just
he
wanted
he's
not
gonna
be
able
to
make
it
today,
but
he
wanted
to
let
everybody
know
that
those
conversations
should
be
wrapping
up
with
the
board
meeting
on
Friday.
They
should
be
affirming
the
votes
that
have
been
ongoing
on
on
that
language.
So
we
should
be
able
to
share
that
language
on
Friday.
A
A
B
Great
and
I
think
there's
a
this
is
probably
on
your
radar,
Michael
Chris,
but
the
calm,
calm
charter,
update
I
think
if
she
says
there's
enough
lies
and
I
was
hoping
that.
C
B
B
C
Well,
I
think
that
TR
407
yeah,
we
need
to
land
that
and
then
we
can
rebase
the
the
one
that
says
to
move
to
stage
3
that
one
I
can't
remember
the
requirements.
There
are
already
a
few
reviews
and
I'm
just
wondering
in
terms
of
our
requirements
for
landing
a
PR
to
a
proposal
in
flight
for
ready
to
land.
B
E
A
moment
on
that
looked
at
this
earlier
slight
concern.
If
we're
talking
about
merging
this
right
way,
there's
a
reference
in
the
Code
of
Conduct
section
there
to
refer
to
the
code
of
conduct
for
the
full-text
and
reporting
and
escalation
procedures,
and
that's
a
link
to
our
own
code
of
conduct
document,
which
does
not
include
the
full
text.
E
E
C
C
C
B
I
believe
that
was
emailing
raising
those
questions
about
the
links
yeah
great,
all
right
great.
So,
let's
see
I
guess
I'll
stick
to
the
agenda
here.
So
moving
on
to
the
next
item
in
the
agenda
is
pull
request,
406,
which
has
missing
links
for
bylaws
and
mission,
slashing
vision
statements
jory
opened
this
six
days
ago.
We've
got
three
approvals
and
I
think
three
outstanding.
Pending
reviews
from
miles
Brian
and
Michael
Jordan.
You
want
to
give
us
any
sort
of
context
for
update
here
sure.
A
And
I
did
just
before
this
meeting
Jordan
address
your
your
requested
changes.
So
all
this
does
is
make
some
links
work
in
the
CPC
charter.
We
have
a
charter
document
that
references,
bylaws
and
a
foundation
mission
and
vision
statement
which
needs
to
be
certainly
made
more
crisp.
But
this
is
a
document
that
we
point
people
to
who
are
building
their
applications
for
joining
the
foundation.
And
then
we
say
you
know,
go
make
sure
that
your
application
kind
of
adheres
to
these
goals
and
this
vision
and
then
those
links
404.
A
C
C
B
C
C
C
B
C
B
Mike
great,
thank
you.
Excellent.
Moving
on
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
full
request,
405,
and
this
is
ads
proposal
for
charter
submission
and
review
per
issue.
Number
200
like
a
couple
of
approvals.
Mateos
got
a
couple
of
questions,
but
I
don't
think
that
either
of
them,
oh,
really
blocking
jewelry.
This
is
your
key
Rd.
You
want
to
give
us
some
more
context.
A
So
this
it
takes
a
stab
at
addressing
what
I
think
will
be
a
very
straightforward
way
of
going
about
that
and
providing
some
guidelines
for
what
a
what
our
CPC
members
will
be
looking
at
when
they
look
at
these
these
charters
remember
we're
gonna
have
30-plus
charters
to
be
improving,
so
we
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
doing
that
in
a
consistent
way
across
all
these
projects
and
that
we're
not
taking
and
we're
not
blogging
down
the
process
with
you
know
unnecessarily.
So
that's
that's
what
this
is
about.
I
hope.
C
A
That's
just
the
proposal,
so
we
again,
if
you
look
at
what
we
have
written,
we
are
really
not
clear
on
that.
So,
if
we
want
to,
you
know,
do
something
different,
that's
fine!
This
is
just
this
is
this
is
the
spaghetti
on
the
wall?
You
know.
C
I'm,
just
thinking
like
without
without
something
written
specifically,
would
follow
our
normal,
our
no
moral
consensus
seeking
process
I.
Just
you
know,
I'm
wondering
like
the
50%
of
voting,
the
and
so
forth
that
side
of
things,
if
we
want
to
like,
is
this
a
case
where
we
need
to
do
something
different
from
the
regular
consensus
seeking
process?
My.
A
C
I'm,
just
looking
because,
like
in
the
in
our
existing
governance,
talk,
we
actually
added
a
section
called
approving
project
charters,
and
so
what
it
says
is
the
request
does
approve
when
they're.
No,
it's
any
objections.
There
are
two
or
more
approvals
by
voting
CPC
members.
The
board
has
been
consult
in
the
case,
substantial
changes.
The
issue
has
been
open
for
for
at
least
14
days.
So
at
very
least,
we
need
to
make.
What's
in
these
two
Doc's
consistent
mm-hmm.
A
C
My
preference
is
for
what's
already
written
in
the
Charter
like
it
does,
does
require
at
least
two
weeks
so
that
gives
people
time
to
to
see
it.
But
then
it
only
requires
two
approval
says
there
are
two
or
more
approvals
for
by
voting
CPC
members.
So
you
know
it's
it's
potentially
higher
bar
because
it
has
to
wait
at
least
fourteen,
but
it
reduces
the
actual
approvals.
Do
you
need
to
be
to
voting
CPC
members,
so
I
don't
know
which
would
result
in
faster
approvals,
but
my
guess
might
be
this
one.
A
C
B
B
Anyway,
moving
on
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
issue
400
and
this
you
know
I'm
think
I'm
gonna
skip
to
the
next
one,
because
I
think
it
is
more
than
overarching
issues.
The
next
item
is
issue
398,
which
is
onboarding
meta
questions.
So
let's
go
to
that
one
first
and
then
we
can
double
back
I
assume.
This
was
born
out
of
the
meeting
regarding
onboarding
and
Jory.
You
open
this
I'm
sorry
to
keep
trying
the
mic
to
you,
but
do
you
want
to
give
us
a
little
more
context
here?
Sure.
A
So
you
know
again,
this
was
identified
through
on
boarding
activities
and
meetings
with
the
team
working
to
incubate,
and
so
we
took
up
the
first
question
first
last
week
on
whether
we
want
uniformity
in
the
naming
of
certain
files
and
group
last
week
tended
toward
yes
wanting
all
files
to
match
what
github
promotes
as
best
practice.
So
that's
sort
of
a
piece
that
will
need
to
be
just
added
into
our
checklist
as
we're
going
through
a
new
project
to
make
sure
that
that
uniformity
exists.
A
Assuming
we
all
still
agree
with
that
question
one
about
onboarding
highlighted.
Actually,
you
know
a
challenge
with
kind
of
some
steps
we
took
related
to
onboarding.
We
created
a
onboarding
template
issue
which
is
alive
in
this
CPC
repository,
and
that
is
the
checklist
world
that
stuff
exists
for
incubation.
A
If
there's
actions
that
need
to
be
taken
on
their
repository,
you
know,
or
they
need
to
take
actions
on
our
repository,
how
do
we
handle
access
management
and
that
kind
of
thing?
So
that
was
the
bucket
of
questions
but
I
think
more
specifically,
orders
is
more
concretely
right
now
we
have
all
morning
questions
and
where
do
we
want
to
be
sort
of
housing?
Those
and
having
conversations
about
those?
So
we
reduce
the
noise.
B
Yeah
I'm,
sorry
that
I
wasn't
able
to
make
that
meeting
so
I
think
it's
really
important
work
I.
My
inclination
is
to
just
have
all
onboarding
related
stuff,
be
in
the
onboarding
repo
and
have
that
repo
really
be
an
extension
of
the
CPC
and
make
sure
that
we
are.
You
know
we're
doing
that.
Repo
and
tagging
things
appropriately
so
they're
on
the
agenda
that
were
continually
staying
on
top
of
that
I
would
say
with
a
project
board.
B
I
would
suggest
that
correspondingly
we
would
we
would
move.
You
know,
documents
over
there
and
point
people
and
to
that
repository
I'm.
Looking
at
the
issue
templates
as
well
and
there's
a
project,
onboarding
checklist
template
again,
I
Maya
preference
would
be
to
move
all
this
stuff
over
to
one
repo
and
just
kind
of
be
the
canonical
place.
C
When
you
mean
everything
you
mean
because
there's
there's
two
types
of
things:
I
guess
there's
the
stuff
which
is
specific
to
on
boarding
a
project
and
then
there's
the
general
stuff.
So,
for
example,
we
you
know
we
just
talked
about
how
charters
are
approved
for
a
project
and
I
guess
as
part
of
onboarding
you're
gonna
have
to
approve
charters.
C
B
Personally,
I
would
I
would
I
would
move
it
to
the
onboarding
repo,
but
I
think
it's.
You
know
six
of
one
half
dozen,
the
other
I
don't
want
to
get
to
on
that
one.
C
Yeah
I'm,
just
thinking
like
that
one
then
you
know,
gets
complicated
because
some
of
that
sin
that
in
the
governance
as
well
so
I'd
almost
lean
towards
the
everything
that's
generic
in
the
CPC
repo
and
then
the
specifics
for
onboarding
particular
projects
go
into
onboarding,
repo,
buddy,
again,
I.
Think
in
the
end
we
can
work
it
out,
but.
B
A
Really
want
to
approach
this
from
like
a
standpoint
of
what's
gonna,
be
the
best
user
experience
for
our
onboarding
projects,
right
like
what
makes
the
most
sense
to
them,
what
helps
them
when
information
they
need
fastest,
and
that
kind
of
thing
you
know
I
think
sometimes
especially
on
this
particular
piece.
That
should
be
the
priority.
Yeah.
A
C
B
A
A
B
Great
so
I
started
to
comment
here:
I'll
come
back
to
it
and
update
it
and
then
close
it
so
I
did
skip
over
issue.
400
I!
Guess
it's
it's!
You
know
reference
and
the
meta
questions,
but
I
guess
it's
a
separate
question
altogether,
which
is
a
point
of
contact
for
onboarding
number
400
400
here
Toby
raises
the
question
of
how
how
we
have
a
clear
point
of
contact
or
an
onboarding
Brian
suggest.
B
B
B
A
And
so
you
know
if,
if
that's
everybody's,
you
know
understanding
and
what
this
is
just
sort
of
like
a
weird
hangnail
leftover
from
from
our
earlier
figuring
this
out
together,
then
I
think
we
could
maybe
resolve
this
issue
with
a
PR
clarifying
now
in
which
and
I
don't
remember
the
champion
language
lives,
but
I'm
also
happy
to
take
that
action
item.
Oh.
A
B
That
way,
and
then
I've
also
proposed
a
CPC
collab
summit
session
looking
for
around
three
hours
and
there's
some
potential
agenda
items
of,
as
was
mentioned
in
a
previous
call
like
the
transition
process
and
support
for
emeritus
projects,
standards,
working
group,
work,
infrastructure,
project
progression,
including
on-boarding
and
off-boarding,
and
then
I
believe
Michael
raised
the
thought
of
blue
sky.
Thinking
is
another
good
agenda
item.
So
I
propose
this.
The
folks
that
are
putting
things
together
seemed
amenable
to
it.
B
There's
a
call
immediately
after
this
call
I'm
hoping
to
join
and
get
clarity
on
how
pins
are
shaping
up
there,
but
yeah
I
was
trying
to
coordinate
a
few
things
here
to
maximize
our
engagement
with
the
community
at
the
events.
So
if
anybody
has
any
questions
or
wants
to
talk
about
it
further
or
we
can-
or
you
can
ping
me
later
or
you
know-
or
we
can
just
move
on.
B
I'm
hoping
that
that's
you
know
a
useful
session
of
the
collapse
on
it.
Folks
are
there
and
I
hope
they
things
collide
with
other
useful
sessions,
although
I'm
sure
others,
it's
always
hard,
yeah
cool,
so
yeah
like
I,
said
ping
me.
If
you
want
to
talk
about
it
more,
if
anybody
has
anything,
you
want
to
talk
about
just
speak
up
now
or
I'm
going
to
move
along.
B
The
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
calm,
calm
charter
updates,
which,
as
we
discussed
earlier
I,
believe
the
only
thing
remaining
is
to
just
have
the
board
kind
of
kid,
though
I
don't
know
if
it's
necessarily
a
thumbs-up
per
se,
but
we
just
want
to
make
sure
that
they're
aware
of
this
change.
Our
future
changes
to
each
others
are
not
board
approval
required.
B
B
B
This
is
the
this
issue
miles
opened
a
while
ago,
around
administering
project
applications
if
I'm
not
mistaken
and
I'm
checking,
my
last
okay,
so
enjoy,
has
are
coming
from
a
week
ago.
Do
you
yeah
I,
think
that
we
were
just
leaving
this
open
until
we
got
the
private
repo
open
and
having
you
know,
have
that
set
up
and
kind
of
have
a
process
in
place
for
administering
project
applications?
As
you
said,
Jory
I
think
this
issue
can
be
closed.
I
would
agree
if
anybody
object.
B
B
B
B
B
A
Can
share-
and
we
chatted
about
this
briefly
last
week
as
well,
so
if
you'll
all
recall
from
our
application
review
during
the
silent
period,
we
wanted
to
see
a
plan,
a
documented
plan
for
decoupling,
the
aunt
cash
from
Google
as
part
of
their
incubation
process,
that
employment
did
a
pretty
good
chunk
of
work,
came
to
take
on,
but
they're
very
keen
to
do
it.
They
do
need
to
know
whom
should
be
the
mman.
A
The
CPC
should
be
involved
in
that
conversation
from
from
the
get-go,
so
that
they're
creating
a
plan-
that's
gonna,
be
you
know,
acceptable
to
the
CPC.
So
that
is
what
this
issue
is
is
at
the
heart
of
this
issue.
We
want
to
figure
out
what
the
best
way
to
have
those
conversations
you
know
would
be
and
and
we're
keen
to
hear
from
some
thoughts
of
folks
like
Michael
and
tyranny
and
Chris
and
others
who
were
away
last
week.
So
we
didn't
get
any
further
than
that.
A
Not
quite,
and
the
idea
was
that
we
needed
to
talk
to
people
who
wanted
to
be
involved
in
that
effort
to
find
out
what's
the
best
way
to
develop
like
to
communicate
with
each
other.
So
we
we
know
who
the
amp
team
is
that's
going
to
be
dealing
with
with
this
particular
problem.
We
don't
know
who
the
CPC
team
is
so
first
we
need
those
those
hands
and
then
second,
we
need
to
figure
out
what
what
the
best
channel
is
for
those
hands.
We
can
have
a
private
slack.
A
A
A
So
you
know
putting
on
my
my
advocate
for
the
the
incubating
project
hat
here.
I
think
that's
very
well
and
good,
but
you
know
I
I
would
be
wanting
to
know
if
I
were
them.
You
know
like
what
this
process
is
is
really
gonna
look
like
and
who
approves?
Who
approves
that
right
and
so
the
issue
is,
they
can
go
off
and
they
can
come
up
with
a
plan
and
then
say
here
you
go
here's
our
plan,
but
you
know
without
conversation
and
input
from
from
CPC
members
on
a
somewhat
consistent
basis.
A
They
could
get
to
the
end
of
that
and
then
here,
oh
well,
sorry,
this
doesn't
quite
work
for
us,
so
you
know
to
be
you
know,
collaborative
and
to
be
sort
of
the
partners
that
we
want
to
be
here
or
could
create
to
have
some
names
and
to
be
more
active.
If
we're
going
to
make
this
a
requirement
for
them
to
join.
B
A
Right
so
they
want
to
they
want
to
collaborate
with
us
on
the
plan
so
that
you
know
when
we,
when
we
are
concluded
with
that
plan.
We
know
that
it
is
acceptable
and
the
timeline
wise
they
had
originally
hoped
that
they
could
be
through
the
incubation
period
before
the
end
of
the
year.
But
we've
realized
that
that's
that's
not
going
to
happen
for
a
variety
of
reasons.
B
A
In
our
in
our
conversations
with
there's
a
working
group,
that's
myself
and
Brian
Warner
our
meeting
we've
been
meeting
weekly
with
stakeholders
on
the
amp
team
to
talk
about
their
the
incubation
items,
checklist
items
there
they
had
that
as
a
goal,
but
have
kind
of
stepped
back
from
that
because
of
holidays
and
lots
of
other
open
questions
that
we
don't
have
answers
to
yet
did
realizing.
That's
probably
not
realistic.
So
that's
that's
changing.
B
A
Maybe
I'll
send
an
email
or
something
out
to
the
project's
list
asking
for
volunteers
on
to
participate
in
the
CPC.
Only
infrastop
I
did
it's
in
that
last
week,
but
maybe
didn't
highlight
it
well
enough.
I'll
talk
with
Christos,
Wow
who's
raised
their
hand,
and
we
can
kind
of
try
and
at
least
get
some
some
people
involved
and
participating
in
that
conversation.
I'll
talk
to
Tierney,
so
that's
one
one
thing
and
then,
on
the
time
on
the
collabs
I'm
a
deadline
thing
that
maybe
just
we
can
table
that.