►
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
Yeah
thanks
for.
Oh
here
we
go.
No
one
would
do
that
thanks
for
joining
this
week's
open,
Jazz
foundation,
cross
project
council
meeting
today's
the
22nd
and
we
have
a
light
official
agenda,
but
I've
got
a
couple
of
things
that
I
wouldn't
mind
tossing
on
there
as
well,
but
we'll
we'll
just
kind
of
get
into
things
here,
reminder
for
folks
to
add
their
names
to
the
dot
and
help
take
notes.
If
you
can
do,
we
have
any
announcements
before
we
get
into
the
agenda.
Oh.
B
That's
the
1600,
UTC
I
believe,
and
you
can
see
that
in
the
standards
a
working
group
repo
also
want
to
take
a
minute
to
encourage
everybody
to
still
submit
a
proposal
for
the
collab
summit,
because
that's
going
to
be
here
before
we
know
it
and
there's
your
really
awesome.
Lineup
for
node
plus
J
s
interactive
and
it's
going
to
be
cold
in
Montreal.
But
the
warmth
of
our
excitement
for
open,
gos
foundation
project
will
keep
us.
You
know
together.
So
please
come
and.
A
C
B
That
was,
we
had
a
the
jQuery
infrastructure
team
met
on
Thursday
of
last
week
elected
not
to
record
that
meeting,
because
we
were
talking
about
servers
and
data
that
may
not
want
to
be
public.
For
obvious
reasons,
security
related
reasons
and
I
am
happy
to
chat
with
anybody
who
wants
a
brief
recap
of
I
mean
what
we
discussed
and.
B
Primarily
talked
about
the
some
critical
issues
on
the
on
jQuery
project,
specifically
and
some
of
what
you
may
be
seeing
on
Twitter
related
to
just
some
broken
functionality,
so,
unfortunately,
not
much
that
is
directly
applicable.
However
I,
would
you
know
think
that
the
lessons
that
we're
learning
in
terms
of
long
term,
maintenance
and
so
in
graceful
deprecation
of
infrastructure
is
certainly
impossible.
B
A
Next
one,
thank
you
for
that.
Update,
though,
is
it
correct
that
the
board
meeting
is
happening?
This
Friday
not
right,
I,.
C
A
C
Yes,
in
terms
of
the
travel
fund
proposal
that
I've
confirmed,
there's
no
no
concerns
or
objections,
so
I
went
ahead
and
landed
moving
that
to
stage
3,
so
that
should
unlock
us
actually
doing
the
transfer
over
in
terms
of
the
update
to
the
project
progression
we're
doing
an
AVO
through
email.
Don't
quite
have
enough
votes
yet
to
conclude
that,
but
hoping
that
we'll
get
that
relatively
soon,
okay
and
then
otherwise,
probably
worth
just
taking
a
very
quick
look
at
the
board.
C
C
That's
right
so
right
there.
So
basically
we
have
the
proposed
charter
changes
which
is
still
on
that
board
and
then
the
only
other
thing
is
the
process
to
request
legal
advice
for
projects.
So
that's
basically
a
Help
Wanted
tagged
issue
for
writing.
Like
you
know
and
documenting
how
you
request
legal
advice,
although
I
think
Brian,
you
actually
did
doc.
I
saw
a
PR
for
documenting
that
on
the
readme
right,
yeah.
E
C
A
Great
so
the
first
thing
and
like
I
said
we
only
have
a
few
things
on
here.
We
can
jump
into
some
boards
and
I
have
a
couple
of
other
issues,
but
the
first
one
on
here
is
administering
project
applications,
as
we
discussed
last
week,
we're
leaving
this
open
to
land,
PR
3
to
1
project
progression,
which,
as
Michael
said,
is
close
to
being
approved.
But
the
other
point
here
is
like
tracking
and
tooling
question
that
Myles
mentioned
in
his
opening
description.
A
B
So
I
had
a
thought
because
related
to
Myles
is
issue
that
he's
freshly
opened
thanks
to
sorry
for
spamming
everybody
with
issues
this
week
on
onboarding
but
like.
If,
if
we
were
to
create
a
separate
repository
for
onboarding,
would
it
make
sense
for
for
that
application
management
function
to
have
them
there
in
a
project
board?
On
that
repository?
That.
A
F
G
When
I
open
the
issue,
I
was
specifically
just
thinking
about
like
the
place
where
we
opened
the
issues
to
keep
track
of
onboarding
and
potentially
the
document
parts
of
the
onboarding
process.
That
would
be
useful
for
folks.
We
tend
to
mostly
have
kind
of
policy
in
this
repo,
so
it
could
be
a
good
place.
To
kind
of
you
know,
keep
track
of
additional
information.
That's
not
necessarily
policy,
but
more
kind
of
like
good
to
know.
Information,
for
example,
I.
A
Think
that
would
be
great
and
having
the
issue
activity
there
I
think,
would
cut
down
on
the
noise
on
the
CPC
repo,
which
would
be
a
good
benefit.
But
do
we
need
to
discuss
like
any
sort
of
other
tooling?
That
sort
of
you
know
enforces
SLA
aspects
for
the
process
and
communication,
or
anything
like
that?
Was
that
overkill
well.
B
B
Mean
I've
just
most
mostly
very
casually.
You
know
because
I
mess
with
these
kinds
of
things
all
the
time
between
like
Trello
boards
and
waffle
and
project
boards
on
github,
but
you
know
I,
think
there's
there
cons,
pros
and
cons
tall
to
every
option
and
I'm
not
really
not
sure
what
the
things
are.
We
want
to
optimize
for
yeah.
A
I
wonder
if
we
try
to
survive
without
the
tool
a
little
bit
and
see
what
our
pain
points
are
and
then
find
a
tool
to
fix
to
address
those
I
mean
I,
so
I'm
guessing
I'm
envisioning
how
the
process
works.
You
know
somebody
applies.
We
perhaps
an
automated
response
that
we've
received
application,
some
foundation,
support
staff,
replies
to
them
and
get
some
more
personalized
response.
We
identify
a
champion
and
then
you
know
lean
on
the
champions
who
help
you
know
to
check
in
weekly
and
people
process
moving
along.
H
C
G
To
add
on
that,
I
I
would
say
that
the
the
issue
that
I
opened
specifically
about,
like
keeping
track
of
things
I
would
see,
is
tangential
to
this
to
the
other
issue
about
moving
things
to
a
different
repo.
The
moving
things
to
a
different
repo
is
very
specifically
just
about
like
making
it
easier
for
people
to
subscribe
or
filter
the
things
that
they
you
know
like
based
on
subject
areas,
whereas,
like
the
tool
is
very
specifically
like.
C
Right,
it's
more
the
the
kind
of
things
you
see
in
you
know,
bug
tracking
or,
like
you
know,
I
forget,
bugzilla
or
whatever
we're
you
know,
you're
you're
doing
this
Service
Desk
kind
of
stuff,
where
it's
like.
Okay,
the
ticket
was
opened.
If
the
tickets
not
moved
into
this
state
within
you
know
two
days,
then
send
an
email
saying:
hey
your
here's,
your
reminder.
H
C
H
H
F
H
C
I
mean
it's
a
whole
new
system
to
bring
up
and
operate
would
be
the
downside.
I
mean
I,
wonder
if,
if
like
the
low-tech
version
is
that
in
every
weekly
CPC
meeting
we
ask
you
know,
you
know,
are
the
foundation
staff
to
help
us
by
saying
here's
the
here's,
our
applications,
here's
when
they
came
in
have
we
sent
response,
you
know,
have
we
sent
a
response?
Email,
yes
or
no
did
we
meet
our
SLA
like
and,
and
we
could
have
the
intervals
like?
Have
we
gotten
back
to
them?
C
C
F
C
And
since
we've
agreed,
the
applications
are
private.
Potentially
you
know
forever
or
possibly
until
you
know,
they're
made
public
at
some
later
time,
having
having
a
board
versus
just
having
it
all.
An
email
is
actually
a
pretty
good
thing,
because
then
we
can
have
checklists
and
and
all
that
kind
of
stuff
in
the
private
repo.
A
C
J
I
mean
that
more
boilerplate
to
set
up
but
like
there's
a
bunch
of
projects
and
the
foundation
and
I
am
interested
in
paying
attention
to
some
of
them,
but
not
all
of
them
and
I.
Imagine
other
people.
Similarly,
are
you
know
somewhere
between
all
or
nothing,
so
that
might
kind
of
help
with
with
what
Miles
was
talking
about
like
being
able
to
more
granularly
subscribe
to
things?
J
Obviously
you
can
still
do
that
per
issue
in
a
single
repo,
but
you
know,
then
you
know
if
you
want
to
be
able
to
follow
new
issues,
you
have
to
subscribe
to
everything
and
then
unsubscribe.
So
it's
like
less
burden.
I
feel
if,
if
it's
split,
Pro,
repos
and
I
could
just
unwatched
the
repos
that
not
men
care
about
right.
C
J
Yeah
I
guess
it
was
just
for
onboarding
that
that
makes
sense,
but
I
guess
the
like
I
guess:
I'm
kind
of
envisioning
that
there,
if
there
are
any
future
non-public
foundation,
related
questions
having
them
on
github
instead
of
her
email
is
preferred
and
then
you
know
I
don't
know
like
you
could
tag
the
CPC
team.
If
you
wanted
to
get
everyone,
it's
just
a
thought.
Obviously
it
works.
A
So
I
suggest
we,
you
know,
go
go
this
kind
of
low-tech
route
and
then
figure
out
where
out
the
basic
optimizations
are
and
not
prematurely
optimize
too
much
I
think
we
should
have.
You
know,
perhaps
a
well
definitely
a
private
onboarding
week,
Oh,
perhaps
a
public
one
as
well,
once
they
exit
the
silent
period
and-
and
we
set
aside
the
last
few
minutes
last
ten
minutes,
perhaps
of
the
CPC
meetings
to
privately
just
check
on
where
we
are
that's
what
I
suggest
for
starters,.
F
I'm
an
applicant's
perspective
that
sounds
great
and
knowing
that
you
actually
have
like
this
Tuesday
date
where
people
are
going
to
check
on
the
you
know
the
pace
of
your
project,
and
you
will
know
that
something
is
happening
is
actually
super
reassuring.
So
we're
gonna
watch
that
yeah
yeah
we
should.
We
should.
A
A
The
next
issue
on
the
agenda
is
responsible
security.
Disclosures,
and
you
know
we
talked
about
this
a
couple
times.
I
think
where
we
are
right
now
and
Michael.
You
can
update.
If
you
have
anything,
but
basically
is
it
Marcin
and
security
working
group
for
node
is
going
to
put
together
a
proposed
and
we'll
go.
Come
there
yep.
A
All
right
so
not
much
to
talk
about
there.
Well,
we'll
check
back
in
next
week
see
there's
any
progress
so
from
there.
The
next
issue
is
actually
to
go
through
the
post
bootstrap
project
board.
Before
we
do,
I
have
I
had
a
couple
of
issues
that
I
wanted
to
bring
up
and
the
onboarding
the
repo
was
one.
The
infrastructure
update
was
another.
The
third
one,
though,
was
project
champion,
was
352.
A
Pull
this
up
somewhere
issue
I.
Think
Matteo,
yeah
Matteo
asks
in
this
issue.
You
know
in
case
the
project
application
the
person
doing
the
project
application
is
a
member
of
the
CPC
can
maybe
champion,
or
is
there
a
conflict
of
interest
that
we
should
be
concerned
about
and
Michael
Dawson
trying
then,
but
I
thought
I'd.
Ask
the
question
here
to
see
if
anybody
had
thoughts
on
whether
a
CPC
member
bringing
a
project
to
the
foundation
can
also
be
its
champion
or
if
we
think
we
should
separate
those
two.
D
A
A
J
J
H
Know,
and
also
having
it
separate,
we
mean
that
you
have
multiple
people
involved
that
are.
Is
it's
pretty
reassuring
that
doing
that?
You
know
you're
not
actually
discrediting
anything
right.
You
have
a
neutral
stand
point
to
deportation,
an
application.
It's
not
like.
Okay,
since
I'm
the
champion
and
I'm,
also
applying
it's
gonna,
be
hard
to.
You
know,
have
a
critical
judgment
on
that
project,
or
it
kind
of
makes
it
blurry
between
the
lines.
So
having
clear
distinctions
would
probably
be
good.
In
my
opinion,
though,.
C
That's
kind
of
where
I
was
coming
from
too
is
like
that.
There's
a
potential
that
it
you
know
likely
only
in
perception,
but
that
does
matter
that
they're
potentially
be
some
advantage.
If
you
know
you're
on
the
CPC
and
you
can
propose
and
champion
your
own
and
and
having
the
multiple
people
involved,
does
have
some
benefits
too
so
I
know
I
didn't
don't
have
the
super
strong
feeling,
but
that
was
sort
of
my
gut
feeling
that
having
it
be
separate
would
be
better.
A
Timoteo,
thanks
for
joining
roughly
commenting
on
your
issue,
number
352
asking
about
project
champions
of
projects
that
a
CPC
member
might
be
bringing
to
the
organization
where
we're
landing
on
the
thought
that
it
would
be.
It
would
probably
be
best
to
keep
separate
so
that
you
know
if
there
was
any
sort
of
conflict
that
it
would
already
be
handled
and
that
you
know
perhaps
more
people
working
on
it.
The
better.
I
Just
remove
confusion
so
that
that
problem
arises
when
when
there
could
be
some
confusion,
so
whatever
is
the
good,
so
that
is
not
left
to
the
to
the
applicants
to
be
to
figure
this
out.
Okay,
because
that
is,
there
is
a
conflict
of
interest,
of
course
on
somebody,
it
is
already
part
of
the
of
the
CPC,
and
you
know
in
you
know
sustaining
their
value
by
bringing
some
project
in
and
on
the
other
side
there
is.
I
There
is
also
the
fact
that
we
to
ensure
a
fair
process,
so
those
two
things
needs
to
be
to
be
balanced
out,
so
a
person
might
not
be
a
good
fit,
but
then
the
person
is
not
in
the
perfect
best
position,
essentially
so
I
I
totally
agree.
I
totally
understand
the
downside
of
that
approach
is
it,
of
course
it
creates
a
little
bit
more
of
a
little
bit
more
process
and
there
will
be
more
work,
but
I
think
it
is
good.
I
F
F
I
F
Might
sort
of
create
like
the
impression
of
a
clique
from
the
outside,
and
so
you
know
this
is
something
you
might
want
to
consider
and
then
the
other
aspect
so
I
don't
know
the
specifics
of
that.
But
my
understanding
is
we
had
during
the
amp
application
eight
champion
change
that
was
to
do
to
two
related
perspective.
Things
of
that
nature.
I
wasn't
privy
to
conversations,
but
I
know
that
we
can
achieve
a
change.
F
H
H
Two
separate
champions
or
having
that
distinct,
clear
separation
will
mean
that
it's
a
system
that
builds
on
trust
right.
So
you
know
that
the
process
is,
isn't
interfered
or
something
like
that.
That
is
kind
of
reassuring
for
the
rest
of
people
as
well,
so
I
think
three
porn,
even
though
it's
gonna
be
more
work
for
us,
it's
important
to
build
trust,
and
that's
probably
the
most
important
attribute
in
fact
of
the
entire
organization.
C
A
A
Either
way
great
yeah
I'm,
like
I,
was
saying
that's
a
good
first
issue.
Anybody
who
wants
to
jump
in
and
land
a
change
that'd
be
awesome,
yep
great
great
thanks
for
letting
me
sidetrack
the
agenda
slightly.
There
I
thought
that
was
a
good
question
too,
to
dig
into
so
moving
back
to
the
agenda.
A
A
Digging
in
here,
the
first
issue
on
in
progress
which
actually
is
in
progress,
is
the
admin
policy
Doc's
when
I
say
it
that
way,
because
I
was
working
on
it
this
morning,
I'm
pulling
some
admin
policy
Doc's
from
the
node
foundation
in
updating
them,
and
we
could
use
that
as
a
starting
point
for
some
policy
Docs
for
the
foundation,
things
such
as
transferring
a
repo
and
the
open
J's
org,
goetaborg
management
policy
and
working
group
or
acquirements
so
I'm,
hoping
that
I
can
land
that
or
not
land
it
but
open
a
PR.
Today,.
A
A
B
Do
have
one
minor
update
just
in
case,
because
I
did
it
right
before
we
started
/
some
conversations
we
had
like
two
weeks
ago:
I
think
I
I
posted
a
link
to
the
draft
services
menu
and
for
folks
to
review
and
comment
on
and
there's
a
link
to
that
draft
on
issue
number
333
and
then
the
related
one
that
you
posted
Jo,
which
was
258
I,
think
so
so
take
a
look.
Please
great.
B
I
think
one
thing
that
I
noticed
is
there
there's
still
a
couple.
People
have
asked
more
like
foundational
questions,
that
we
need
to
get
some
answers
on
and
that's
harder
to
highlight
in
the
PR
but
I'm
happy
to
make
that
a
PR
that
would
be,
if
that,
would
that
probably
would
be
easier
for
everybody.
Okay,.
C
B
So
one
of
the
questions
was:
does
the
must
the
domain
be
transferred?
If
a
project
is
coming
in
to
the
foundation?
Is
it
a
requirement
that
it's
domain
is
transferred
I'm
just
going
through
really
quick,
but
I?
Don't
see
why
those
conversations
couldn't
happen
on
github,
so
I'm
happy
to
to
move
this
over
and
most
Brian
thinks
of
any
reason
why
we
couldn't,
or
we
shouldn't
I
think.
E
Yeah,
that's
that's
the
gist
of
it
is
that
one
of
the
things
that
we've
seen
in
many
other
projects
is
that
there
are
concerns
about
single
points
of
control,
and
that's
one
of
the
things
that
can
you
know
what
whether
it
ends
up
being
used
as
a
single
point
of
control
or
just
looks
like
one
generally.
Contributors
are
more
comfortable
when
those
things
become
neutral.
A
C
A
Great
so
I,
there
are
three
items
and
the
waiting
on
the
board
slash
foundation,
and
this
reminds
me
to
you
that
I
have
an
action
item
to
break
out.
The
board
of
who-ville
requires
label
into
two
labels,
so
waiting
on
the
board
and
the
board
approval
required
that
I
will
try
to
get
to
soon.
So
we
can
differentiate
between
the
two
or
approval
is
explicitly
required
and
we're
we're
just
waiting
for
perhaps
guidance
or
or
something.
A
C
E
E
A
B
The
one
thing
where
it's
just
kind
of
pointing
out
so
when
we
did
add
I,
did
add
the
issues
to
the
repo
for
for
all
of
our
projects,
so
they
all
have
an
onboarding
issue
now
and
those
are
all
on
the
board.
A
lot
of
folks
have
already
kind
of
been
tagged
in
and
started
to
work
on,
making
the
updates
they
needed.
So
that
was
great.
B
The
one
thing
that
I
had
to
do,
though,
to
be
able
to
tag
project
leads,
who
have
not
been
participating
in
the
bootstrap
or
CPC
group
was
to
create
a
project,
leads
team
that
have
triage
access.
So
that's
not
right,
but
the
ability
to
update
their
their
issue
there,
and
that
is
how
some
folks
have
been
added
I
to
the
to
the
repository
I.
Think.
B
That's
probably
a
good
thing
to
you
know
keep,
because
not
all
project
leads
want
to
follow
along
with
the
CPC
all
the
time,
but
it's
probably
good
to
be
able
to
tag
them
on
issues
that
we
need
to
make
sure
they
all
see
but
happy
to
discuss.
Other
approaches
that
we
could
use
here
but
needed
to
get
that
going.
So
asking
forgiveness:
we.
C
C
B
A
B
Well,
I
think
it's
also
helpful
just
because
know
what
knowing
who
you
know
the
point
person
is
for
a
given
project.
That's
something
we
may
need
to
be
able
to
assess
pretty
quickly
from
time
to
time.
So
having
that
it's
already
proved
a
little
helpful
to
Rachel
and
Robin,
and
so
I'm
hoping
others
will
find
that
as
well.
Yeah.
B
C
A
C
Have
any
concern
I
thought
I
was
just
sharing
what
it's
in
what's
in
the
list,
because
if,
if,
for
example,
you
open
an
issue
and
tag
them
with
it,
it
I,
you
know,
then
being
able
to
close.
It
seems
reasonable
and
the
downside
doesn't
seem
like
I.
Don't
think
people
are
gonna,
go
around
closing
issues
that
cause
problems
anyway,.
A
Well,
thanks
for
doing
that,
Jory
and
I
think
it's
a
good
step,
we'll
see
how
it
works
up,
CLE,
they're,
great
anything
else
in
terms
of
onboarding
I,
wonder
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
like
we
had
decided
earlier
in
the
meeting.
Take
the
last
ten
minutes
to
discuss.
You
know,
applications
or
anything.
That's
in
process
and
Robin
say
she
had
some
news
too.
That
she'd
like
the
chair,
I,
assume
publicly.
Yes,.
K
Absolutely
publicly,
we
have
great
news
today,
with
the
open,
J's
foundation
launched
the
node.js
certification
program
went
live
this
morning.
You
can
all
read
more
retweet
and
I.
Think
it's
great
news
for
devs
and
folks
will
be
looking
to
hire
great
talent
as
well.
Let's
go
kudos
to
all
the
folks
who
really
helped
bring
it.
I
know
it
was
a
long
process
and
we
had
some
great
partners
at
the
end
to
help
bring
it
over
the
finish
line
from
node
source
and
near
forum
and
true
ability
from
our
LF
Lennox
foundation,
training
team.