►
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
Cool
toby's
in
the
attendee
list,
if
someone
can
get
that,
I
will
grab
the
link
to
the
live
stream
and
say
hello.
A
And
we'll
get
things
started
thanks
everyone
for
joining
another
episode
of
the
openjs
foundation's
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
the
12th
of
april
in
the
year
2022,
and
I
will
drop
the
minutes
in
the
chat
again
for
folks.
A
You
can
help
take
notes.
That'd
be
great.
Add
yourself
to
the
list
and
we'll
get
things
started.
How
about
we
start
with
any
announcements.
B
Quickly,
openjs
world,
we
just
published
the
schedule
a
few
days
ago-
that's
kind
of
the
start
of
the
schedule,
we're
still
booking
out
another
section
of
our
venue
with
a
lot
of
project,
maintainers
and
other
folks,
but
you'll
see
our
most
of
our
keynotes
are
up.
Our
breakout
sessions
are
up.
So
thanks
to
everyone
who
submitted
cfps
that
was
really
hard
for
our
program
committee.
We
had
just
a
ton
of
great
submissions
what
else?
Oh
early
bird
pricing
we
extended
through
april
15th.
B
Initially
it
was
the
eighth,
but
we
extended
it
since
we
got
our
our
schedule
up
a
little
late,
so
be
sure
to
check
out
the
early
bird
pricing.
You'll
save
a
couple
hundred
bucks
if
you're
buying
at
the
corporate
rate,
and
we
also
have
a
room
block
that
goes
through
about
mid-may
for
special
prices
for
hotel,
so
check
the
travel
tab
of
that.
C
C
You
know,
there's
a
a
cpc
board
director
election
that
we're
running
so
just
some
different
housekeeping
items
that
that
should
be
in
your
inbox
and
speaking
of
your
inboxes
and
don't
forget
to
update
your
email
address.
If
you
leave
employment
one
one
place,
we
need
to
make
sure
that
we've
got
your.
You
know
personal
gmail
or
your
new.
Your
new
spot
have
run
into
a
couple
of
maintainers
who
changed,
email,
addresses
and
didn't
get
those
messages.
So
just
friendly
reminder
to
to
update
that
as
well.
C
D
Cool,
I
think
I
might
as
well
mention
that
message.
Format
has
managed
to
make
a
step,
take
a
step
along
its
path
of
planned
obsolescence.
Shall
we
say
by
getting
the
input
message,
format
proposal
accepted,
at
least
as
a
stage
one
proposal
by
dc39.
D
E
A
Cool
yeah,
very
cool,
that's
great
news
cool.
When
I
open
the
pr
to
put
this
the
meeting
minutes
in
emily,
maybe
you
can
just
add
a
little
bit
of
the
detail.
I
didn't
catch
all
of
it
in
the
notes
here
sure
great.
Thank
you
rock
and
roll
anything
else
before
we
move
into
the
agenda.
A
If
not
jewelry
touched
on
this
first
item
in
her
comments
that
the
cpc
primary
board
seat
election
is
open,
or
at
least
open
for
nominations,
call
for
nominations
is
open.
I'm
looking
at
the
instructions
here
of
the
details
doesn't
necessarily
say
how
long
we'll
have
the
wait.
The
call
for
nominees
so
until
april,
15th,
okay,
so
friday
will
close
and
then
we'll
put
forward
the
ballots
to
the
cpc
members
via
up
a
vote
for
the
instructions
in
the
charter
cool.
A
So
anything
to
add
here
other
than
you
know
I
I
know
toby
had
some
good
comments
and
michael
as
well
about
you
know
whether
people
should
stay
on
for
more
than
one
term.
F
Just
to
verify
dory,
it's
the
google
form
correct.
Do
we
also
have?
I
know
last
time
we
had
an
issue
open.
Do
we
have
an
issue
open
as
well.
C
I
can
always
look
too.
There
is
an
issue
that
announced
the
nomination.
The
the
nomination
period
is
open
and
you
know
any
candidate
who'd
like
to
sort
of
publicly
disclose
their
candidacy
and
add
a
statement
or
two
about.
Why
is
so
welcome
to
either.
You
know,
add
a
comment
to
that
issue
or
to
open
their
own
issue,
but
yes,
that
I
think
it's
issue.
859.
A
Yeah
and
I
imagine
we'll
announce,
nominations
soon
after
it
closes,
and
you
know
that
could
be
an
opportunity
to
comment
as
well
whether
you
want
to
wait
or
not
anyone
that
is
cool
anything
else
on
on
this
item
or
shall
we
move
on.
G
Can
we
have
a
conversation
when
nominations
are
in
about
what
I
suggested
talking
about
in
that
thread?
Would
that
be
a
good
time?
Then?
Sorry,
what's
the
question
toby
once
nominations
are
in?
Can
we
have
a
conversation
then
about
what
I
see
essentially
what
I
brought
up
in
that
thread?
G
The
point
I'm
trying
to
make
is,
I
think
it's
important
that
we
not
only
think
about
who
would
like
to
see,
but
also
of
having
the
cpc
represented
sort
of
like
long
time,
I'm
in
the
board
and
making
choices
that
make
sense
from
that
perspective.
So
that's
kind
of
what
I
wanted
to
say.
I
find
it
kind
of.
G
I
find
it
kind
of
weird
that
if
someone
you
know,
started
doing
one
term
and
wants
to
do
a
second,
a
second
term,
even
that
we
should
be
like
re-voting
that
person
and
to
me
is
it's
even
that
is
kind
of
weird.
So
I
don't
know
if
now
is
a
good
time
to
have
this
conversation,
but
I
think
we
should
be
more
intentional
as
a
group
as
to
what
those
seats
are
for
and
make
sure
that
there
is
content.
You
know
continuing
and
representation.
G
What's
going
on
and
then
move
on
right
and,
of
course,
like
the
the
other
part
of
that
is
to
make
sure
that
there's
a
a
limit
to
how
long
someone
says
stays
so
we're
sure
to
have
like
fresh
folks
coming
in
so
I
mean
I
just
elections
are
great,
but
I'm
just
wondering
if
they
make
a
lot
of
sense
like
at
every
step
of
this.
G
C
I
was
guess
I
was
going
to
say,
I
think
the
conversation
about
term
term
limits
and
and
the
the
problem
that
term
limits
may
or
may
not
solve
is
is
worth
having
after
the
elections.
C
For
that,
we
that
we
need
to
run
are
are
over
because
you
know
we
do
have
those
things
live,
and
I
would
hate
for
us
to
put
you
know
that
cart
before
the
horse,
that
we
need
to
run
yeah.
A
F
Yeah,
I
agree
with,
I
agree
with
both
toby
and
jory.
I
think
that
maybe
revisiting
the
term
limits
might
be
a
good
thing
to
do.
Also
the
term
length
too,
like
I
think
what
I'm
hearing
from
toby,
which
I
think
is
a
good
point,
is
like
a
year.
F
You
kind
of
have
enough
time
to
get
context
and
like
how
to
be
effective,
and
then,
if
maybe
the
answer
is
extending
the
length
of
a
term
and
then
imposing
limits,
but
yeah,
probably
after
this
election
makes
sense,
because
we
don't
want
to
be
that
that
group
that
extends
our
own
term
limits
in
the
middle
of
our
terms.
A
Yeah
yeah
it's
interesting.
I
think
we
should
have
both
those
discussions.
B
A
Yeah,
so
let's
just
we'll
start
that
conversation
after
we
get
through
this.
This
election
sounds
good
cool
with
that.
Unless
there's
more
that
folks
want
to
discuss,
then
we
can
move
on
and
if
so,
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
issue
826
to
focus
on
javascript
security
at
openjs.
A
Nothing
really
new
here.
I
have
been
swamped
with
the
life
and
work,
so
I
have
not
been
able
to
do
anything.
I
know
you
know
robin
graciously
drafted
something
for
starting
the
collab
space
around
security,
so
I'm
hoping
in
the
next
like
week.
You
know
my
my
near
future
starts
to
get
a
little
less
stressful,
so
so
I'm
happy
to
to
to
to
try
and
focus
on
this
in
the
coming
days
as
well.
So
I
don't.
A
You
know
if
anybody
has
any
comments
or
things
they
want
to
add
you're.
Welcome
too
three.
C
Yeah-
and
I
just
want
to
chime
in-
and
maybe
add
some
color
to
this,
because
folks
may
not
be
familiar
with
like
with
with
the
goal
here,
so
we
have
obviously
a
big
sort
of
shared
va
invested
interest
in
improving
security
of
our
open
source
projects.
C
There
is
a
a
new
security
foundation
at
the
linux
foundation,
called
the
open
ssf
through
which
there
are
lots
of
potential
opportunities
to
to
partner
and
borrow
you
know
best
practices,
and
things
from
that
is
a
you
know
that
that
particular
group
is
a
high
level
cross
language
cross.
You
know
ecosystem
sort
of
focus
and
obviously
they
care
a
lot
about
about
javascript
there's
there.
C
We
need
to
maybe
have
a
space
within
the
openjs
foundation
where
our
experts
can
meet
and
convene
and
discuss
and
then
go
bring
the
problems
and
challenges
that
are
unique
to
us
to
those
forums
of
which
there
are
several
that
present.
You
know,
opportunities
for
us
to
to
get
involved
to.
C
You
know
help
our
our
projects
improve
their
security
posture
because
fun
fact
of
like
the
top
100
most
critical
js
projects,
something
like
two-thirds
of
our
projects
are
in
that
top
100
list
and
that's
pretty
pretty
cool
and
also
very
important.
So
that's
just
the
extra
I
wanted
to
add.
Thanks.
A
Yeah,
thank
you
jory
and
I'll.
Add
to
you
that
there
there
is
work,
that's
happening.
You
know,
I
don't
want
to
say
behind
the
scenes,
but
there's
stuff
there
is
movement.
That's
going
on
I'm
just
in
terms
of
like
formalizing,
a
collab
space,
I'm
hoping
that
we
can
move
forward
on
that
soon.
A
B
Yeah
and
just
a
message,
I
know
that,
like
lauren
weighed
in
so
when
we
do
a
collab
space,
we'll
be
sensitive
to
time
zones
and
make
sure,
if
you're,
a
security
expert
in
particular
that
we're
going
to
accommodate
anyone
who
wants
to
participate
so
that'd
be
good
and
yeah,
and
then
we
are
pretty
lucky
that
you
know
we
have
shared
resources
with
the
linux
foundation.
Jewelry
is
one,
so
she
supports
open,
ssf
and
jordan
sits
on
the
board
of
open
ssf.
A
Absolutely
great
so
yeah,
hopefully
more
on
this
one
in
our
next
official
meeting.
It's
definitely
top
of
mind
for
me,
cool
moving
on
the
next
item
is
the
license
check,
support
and
tooling.
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
updates
on
this
from.
B
B
They
also
just
did
their
homework
just
to
make
sure
that
any
sort
of
existing
solutions
wouldn't
be
better.
It
doesn't
sound
like
they
are,
but
we
had
a
good
meeting
with
jordan
in
that
team.
So
schubert
said,
he'll
drop
a
more
formal
update.
He
was
hoping
end
a
day
today
because
he's
looking
for
some
more
information
just
to
kind
of
wrap
things
up,
but
once
they
have
that
wireframe
I've
been
told
we
can
have
it
like
a
early
version
in
a
month.
So
we'll
see
okay,.
A
Great
great
that's
good
news
cool
moving
on
then.
The
next
item
is
clarify
requirements
around
coc
violation.
I
feel
like.
I
saw
some
movement
in
this
general
area
recently,
but
I
can't
remember
what
exactly
it
was.
I
don't
know
if
you
have
any
updates
toby
and
I
see
emo
leads
no
yeah,
so.
D
G
I'm
the
one
who
added
the
label
here
and
the
oh.
No,
it's
a
that's
a
that's
a
different
thing.
Oh
sorry,
I
think
joe
was
mentioning
that
the
thing
that
I'm
super
late
in
finishing
is
that
correct.
I'm
sorry
I
was
only
paying
half
attention.
Oh.
A
Yeah,
no,
the
issue
786,
which
is
clarify
requirements
around
coc
violation,
and
I
think
I
was
confusing
something
with
you
know.
Emily
had
landed
some
things
in
the
last
few
days,
but
also
all
confused.
A
The
agenda
item
is
issue
786
clarify
requirements
around
coc
violation
yeah.
So
there
are
no
updates
on
this.
Okay.
B
I
think,
and
you
saw
on
code
of
conduct,
there's
a
lot
in
a
pull
request
too.
I
spent
some
time
in
the
last
week
just
really
digging
through
everything
I
think
we
have
all
of
the
pieces.
I
just
think
that
we
just
need
to
work
on
the
process
and
some
documentation
and
probably
worth
one
of
our
working
group
meetings
just
to
kind
of
just
crank
that
out,
but
I
do
I
do
feel
like
we're
we're
pretty
close,
at
least
for
the
near
term.
B
Unless
you
know
the
contributor
covenant
changes
dramatically,
which
it
may
through
the
industry
so
but
there's
and
I
I
spent
some
time
on
the
contributor
covenant
as
well.
So
there's
a
lot
of
interesting
work,
taking
place
a
lot
of
encouraging
to
take
that
and
and
develop
a
process
that
works
best
for
your
organization,
so
yeah.
I
think
we
can
do
some
more
work.
There.
E
I
don't
want
to
get
out
of
sort
of
issues.
Think,
and
I
know
we'll
probably
go
to
that,
but.
A
Well,
what
I'm
thinking
about
is
our
working
meetings,
and
I
guess
we
can
save
that
conversation
for
after
we
get
through
the.
E
A
But
we
didn't
have
anything
last
week
we
don't
have
anything
on
the
calendar
for
next
week.
So,
let's
think
about
that-
and
we
can
talk
about
it
once
we
get
through
the
agenda
cool
great,
so
we
got
a
couple
of
items
outside
of
the
cpc
repo.
The
first
one
is
from
the
tech
strategy
at
initial
section
on
how
open.js
helps
projects
opening
this
sucker
up.
This
is
pull
request.
Four.
A
This
was
opened
almost
two
weeks
ago.
Michael
you
opened
it.
I
know
we
had
some
conversation
here,
you're
on
mute,
michael,
if
you
well,
maybe
you're
even
chewing.
I
don't
know.
H
Yeah,
no
I'm
okay,
yeah
yeah,
I
opened
it
and
you
know
I
think
you'd
had
the
discussion,
so
it
sounded
like
the
on
the
foundation
side.
We
were
on
board
it'd,
be
nice
to
get
it
landed,
is
the
first
thing
we've
documented
clearly
in
terms
of
you
know,
one
of
the
areas
that
were
the
foundation
providing
projects,
support.
A
Yeah,
if
folks
haven't
seen
this
yet-
and
it
is
a
in
the
tech
strategy
repo-
you
know,
this
is
something
we've
been
talking
about,
particularly
on
the
node.js
side,
about
trying
to
help
share
news
and
important
updates
and-
and
things
like
that,
so
this
is
sort
of
an
initial
step
to
allow
folks
to
raise
put
you
know,
items
that
that
thing
should
be
promoted.
H
So
there
was
some
discussion
on
this
one
on
like
timing.
I
don't
think
that
matters
to
me
in
terms
of
landing.
This
I
think
it's
like.
Does
this
reflect
what
we're
going
to
do?
If
so,
let's
land
it
and-
and
you
know
it's
going
to
happen
a
month
from
now-
that's
not
a
big
deal,
one
way
or
the
other
right.
If
it's
six
months
for
a
year,
maybe
we
don't
want
to
say
we're
doing
something
that
long.
That's
right!.
B
B
Yeah
we
have
that
again.
I
think
we
have
the
pieces,
that's
just
putting
it
together.
In
a
you,
know,
a
thorough
presentation
for
high
level
and
then
the
further
documentation,
and
we
also
regularly
update
member
member
information
as
well.
So
we
need
to
do
another
rev
of
that
we're
just
it's
just
like
a
really
busy
news
month,
which
is
amazing,
so
cool.
A
Yeah
all
right
great,
if
anybody
has
any
other
comments
on
this,
feel
free
to
speak
up,
but
otherwise
you
know,
I
recommend
folks,
take
a
look
and
you
know
see
how
it
looks
to
them
and
put
their
thumb
on
it
or
whatnot
cool.
I'm
looking
forward
to
that,
and
then
the
last
item
on
the
agenda
is
from
the
community
fund.
This
is
add
details
of
yearly
awards
program.
This
is
pull
request.
11.
H
Michael
you
opened
this
yeah
I
opened
this,
I
mean.
Basically,
we
had
a
discussion.
It
was
in
our
working
session.
This
is
our
documentation
for
what
we
I
think
are
already
doing
so
would
be
good
if
we
document
it
before
the
first
time
we
give
them
out.
So
again,
people
could
could
look
at
it
and
give
approvals
we
could
get.
It
landed,
as
you
know,
a
nice,
a
nice
addition
again
to
that
tech
strategy
that
you
can
go
to
we're.
Actually,
sorry,
that's
not
the
tech
bridge.
B
We
updated
some
of
the
language
for
the
award,
so
jory
and
I
think
george,
you
have
a
a
a
different
doc.
That's
retracts,
some
of
that
language
that
we've
updated
so.
C
Yeah,
so
the
the
language
that
shipped
altered
shipped
on
the
nomination
form
altered
slightly,
but
I
mean
the
spirit
is
exactly
the
same,
so
I
can
update
michael's
pr
with
the
current
and
and
then
assuming
there's
no
questions
or
clarifications.
After
a
week
just
hit
hit
the
old
merge
button.
We
are
taking
just
hijacking
this
briefly
to
re-encourage
everyone
to
to
to
submit
a
nomination.
C
Nominations
are
going
to
be
open
through
the
end
of
the
month,
and
we've
got
four
or
sorry,
six
different
awards
areas
that
we're
nominating
for
and
just
to
be
really
clear.
These
do
not
have
to
be
people
from
our
projects,
specifically,
they
they
can
certainly
be
exist
and
make
a
big
impact
from
outside
open
js
project
specifically,
but
rather
you
know
they're
they're
serving
the
javascript
ecosystem,
which
is
the
community
that
we
endeavor
to
serve
so
any
questions
on
the
program
implementation.
C
A
A
Should
we
yup.
D
D
The
conversations
that,
in
the
conversations
that
we've
had
about
this,
at
least
my
understanding,
has
been
that,
in
terms
of
these
actions,
we're
talking
our
intent
is
to
talk
about
actions.
These
actions
targeting
the
project
community,
so
the
ceos
of
the
coc
violation
would
potentially
lead
to
a
temporary
or
permanent
ban
from
the
specific
projects
community,
rather
than
all
of
the
overjs
foundation
and
effectively.
D
If
our
shared
sense
is
this,
we
ought
to
add
in,
like
a
some
add
to
the
preamble
that
we
already
have
for
the
clc
a
clarifier
for
what
we
mean
by
community
in
this
case
in
general.
This
is
much
the
same
situation
as
we
have
for
our
the
clas
that
we
have,
which
are
the
apache
clas,
which
refer
to
they
use
the
term
project,
but
in
our
understanding
of
the
cla.
D
I
I
In
no
way
does
that
mean
we
will
or
must,
or
that
we
will
force
an
individual
project
to
do
such
a
thing,
but
we
must
retain
the
capability
and
that's
why
I
think
the
word
project
shouldn't
be
there
community
should
be
intentionally
vague
so
that
we
have
the
widest
latitude
of
enforcement,
obviously
separately
from
that
we
never
want
to
compel
a
project
to
do
something
that
projects
maintainers
don't
do
as
a
foundation
like
I,
I
that's
my
opinion
as
a
foundation,
cpc
member
board
member
whatever
and
also
as
a
project
maintainer,
but
we
always
want
the
ability
to
do
that
in
case
project
maintainers
are
amenable.
J
Sorry
yeah,
I
guess
you
know
thanks
for
clarifying
jordan,
I
guess
you
know
the
my.
My
main
question
was
like
you
know,
is
there
you
know
is
like
how
likely
are
we
to
have
a
circumstance
where
the
appropriate
response
is
a
ban
from
a
very
small
slice
of
the
open,
js
foundation?
But
the
problem
doesn't
warrant,
you
know
banning
you
know
temporarily
or
permanently
from
the
larger
project
and
then
also
for
a
project.
J
If,
if,
if
a
project
is
a,
you
know,
critical
piece
of
infrastructure
and
the
current
maintainers
have
done
something
super
egregious
that
would
warrant
for
moving
the
entire
group
of
maintainers
and
there's
people
who
have
been
involved
in
the
project
before
that
could
take
over
as
maintainers.
You
know,
maybe
there's
been
some
rift
and
one
group
has
been
forced
out
and-
and
it
seems
clear
that
you
know
really-
the
project
needs
maintenance
and
going
forward
to
be
people
who
are
forced
out
could
could
take
on
that
role.
J
Should
we
not
have
you
know
this
seems
like
a
a
an
you
know,
an
infrequent
thing,
but
should
we
not
also
have
the
ability
to
to
do
that
kind
of
thing.
B
Agreed
I've
been
spending
more
time
trying
to
learn
more
about
this
on
the
contributor
covenant
repo
attending
breakout
sessions
that
we
had
at
the
lf
member
summit,
and
I
think
the
theme
that
I'm
hearing
really
sort
of
echoes
what
jordan
said
is
that
flexibility
people
are
messy,
it
could
be
temporary.
Someone
could
be
having
a
bad
day,
so
it
should
be
forgiving.
B
Some
folks
are
saying
the
enforcement
should
be
separate
and
there's
some
movement
around
taking
the
enforcement
piece
and
putting
it
separate,
but
I
think
intentionally
leaving
community
vague,
was
something
that
we
experienced.
We've
only
had
one
case
in
two
and
a
half
years
that
you
know,
we've
really
been
created
and
we
did
talk
about
what
is
what
is
your
community
space,
for
example,
as
opposed
to?
Even
if
it's
a
project
is
twitter,
a
community
space?
I
think
our
committee
committee
decided
yeah.
B
It
is
a
community
space
so
that
flexibility
was
really
important
and
I
think
it
I
think,
what's
really
important
too.
If
you
feel
strongly
about
something,
I
really
encourage
people-
and
maybe
this
is
after
the
working
session.
If
we
do
see
changes
to
take
it
to
the
main
contributor
covenant,
because
those
folks
have
spent
a
lot
of
time-
and
it's
really
interesting
to
see
their
feedback
like
toby
you're
next.
G
The
reason
I've
been
pushing
back
on
this
is
not
because
of
opinions.
I
share.
I
actually,
you
know,
share
the
kind
of
opinion
that
jordan
expressed
earlier.
However,
I
remember
distinctly
having
a
conversation
in
montreal
one
of
the
last
in-person
meetings.
G
We
had
in
a
very
long
time
about
this
topic,
where
there
were
some
project
maintainers
who
were
extremely
concerned
and
defending
vigorously
against
the
possibility
of
being
in
a
position
where
they
would
be
forced
to
ban
someone
without
having
been
able
to
have
an
eye
in
the
process
of
that
ban
happening,
and
my
understanding
was
that
this
specific
language
was
what
had
allowed
us
all
to
move
to
2.0,
and
so
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
are
respectful
of
what
project
maintainers
want
was
my
community
hat
on,
regardless
of
the
fact
that
I
actually
have
a
personally
different
opinion
about
this.
G
So
I
I
just
I
want
us
to
be
careful
about
this
and
I
you
know
for
this
particular
pull
request.
I've
listed
a
bunch
of
options
that
I
think
we
can
do,
but
I
definitely
don't
think
that
we
can
remove
this
tiny
thing
without
being
explicit
about
its
con,
its
meaning
and
making
sure
that
folks
are
okay
with
it.
D
Defining
community
or
dropping
the
projects
word
from
it
as.
D
The
2.0
to
2.1
list
does
effectively
enact
a
possible
change
that
is
likely
to
be
surprising
to
project
maintainers,
who
may
have
read
the
coc
previously
and
from
that
got
a
conclusion
that
the
open,
js
foundation
could
not
mandate
for
them
to
to
take
an
action
without
effectively
consultation.
D
So
I
would
say
that
we
definitely
need
a
deeper
conversation
on
this
topic
than
this
meeting
is
going
to
allow
us
and
another
something
like
a
working
session
or
a
session
at
the
openjs
world.
Would,
I
think,
be
appropriate
for
continuing
this,
but
I
and
I
think
that
effectively
this
means
that
we
need
to
put
on
hold
until
that
conversation
is
resolved.
H
A
Thank
you
michael
george,.
C
Yeah-
and
so
I
think,
one
of
the
things
that
you
know
calling
to
mind
those
initial
conversations
from
from
montreal,
because
I
remember
those
well
as
well
and
a
lot
of
that
came
from
just
a
lack
of
of
clarity
and
trust
and
just
awareness
of
what
the
process
would
be
like,
and
I
think
and
that's
where
a
lot.
C
I
think
a
lot
of
that
initial
reticence
and
came
from
to
to
maybe
to
allow
for
that
step,
not
saying
that
we
need
to
remove
this,
I'm
not
arguing
for
that,
but
what
I
would
say
is
as
we
as
we
do
continue
these
conversations,
maybe
doing
some
education
and
outreach
to
the
the
maintainer
community
that
that
we
have
what
this
means
in
practical
terms,
you
know
to
jordan's
point:
you
know
yeah,
we
we
just
because
we
can
doesn't
mean
we
must
you
know,
do
do
certain
things
and
that
that
should
be
a
thing
that
we
consider
as
we
evolve
this
this
pr
and
our
thinking
here.
I
And
then,
what
I
wanted
to
add
is
if
the
foundation
has
the
ability-
I
don't
know.
Actually
the
foundation
is
prohibited
from
or
allowed
to
mandate
things
of
projects
without
the
project
maintainage
consent.
I
don't
actually
know
the
current
status
there.
I
know
that
we
all
wouldn't
want
to
do
that,
even
if
we
could,
but
if
the
foundation's
allowed
to
then
the
coc
isn't
what
gives
it
that
ability
it
can
force
a
project
to
ban
people
regardless.
I
That
does
not
mean
like
it
like
that,
does
not
change
our
the
foundation's
ability
to
compel
projects
to
do
that
either
they
have
that
ability
or
they
don't
and
whether
they
should
have
that
ability
or
not
is
a
totally
different
discussion
and
whether
you
know
I
hope
we
all
agree
that
we
don't
want
to
exercise
that
ability,
even
if
we
have
it
so
like.
I
agree
that
those
are
valid
concerns
and
they
should
be
taken
into
account.
I
do
not
agree
that
the
code
of
contact
the
conduct
affects
them
in
any
way.
A
Yeah,
thank
you,
jordan.
We
have
a
couple
more
hands
raised
and
then
we
should
wrap
it
up
and
move
on
to
private
business.
Sarah.
F
The
cpc
the
so
I
wanted
to
kind
of
echo
a
few
people
here.
E
F
F
One
thing
I
want
to
flag
is
that
one
thing
I
heard
a
few
times
is
that
the
coc
or
the
cpc
should
not
be
able
to
override
the
projects
as
far
as
decisions
go,
I
think
that
the
coc
counts
on
the
cpc
have
been
very
thoughtful
about
inclusion
when
it
comes
to
or
trying
to
be
thoughtful
about
conclusion,
I
don't
know
how
we
we
try.
A
F
I
don't
know
how
we
do
I'm
not
giving
us
a
grade,
but
I
think
one
thing
to
note
is
that
if
we
allow
the
projects
to
override
the
decision
made
by
the
central
body,
we
should
ask
the
same
from
that.
So
if
we,
if
we
are
giving
them
the
ability
to
say
no,
actually
we're
not
going
to
ban
this
person
who
decided
at
the
maintainer
level
or
at
the
tsp
level,
but
we're
not
going
to.
F
We
should
just
ask
that
that
council,
that
body
be
purposeful
about
inclusion,
and
I
say
that
because
I've
seen
a
lot
of
these
groups
and
they
are
not
and
to
give
them
the
autonomy
or
to
encourage
autonomy
for
them
to
make
these
decisions
separate
from
a
central
body,
and
I
think
that's
important.
A
Yep
agreed
emailing
and
then
we'll
wrap
it
up.
D
Just
want
to
reiterate
my
request
that
we
find
a
further
time,
such
as
a
working
session
or
a
session
at
the
open
day
as
well,
where
we
or
the
actually
the
collab,
something
I
should
say
where
we
can
donate
devote
sufficient
time
to
this
question
and
to
the
questions
of
the
coc
process.
For
us
to
actually
conclude
this
discussion,
which
we
obviously
cannot
do
today,.
A
Yeah
on
that
note,
do
we
want
to
work
on
this
further
on
the
next
working
session,
or
do
I
I
know
we
were
kind
of
wanting
to
wait
to
let
some
things
sort
of
play
out.
I
don't
know
what
the
status
of
things
are,
but
what
do
we
want
to
do
next
working
session.
B
B
A
So
perhaps
if
we
don't
have
something
else
that
we
want
to
work
on,
then
then
it
might
not
be
a
bad
use
of
the
time.
B
Yeah
and
I
may
bring
in
one
of
the
subject
matter-
experts
working
on
code
of
conduct,
policies
elsewhere.
That
might
be
interesting
as
well.
A
So
we'll
continue
this
discussion
next
week,
okay,
cool
great,
so
let's
call
it
a
wrap
on
the
public
session.
Here
we
can
stop
the
stream-
and
you
know
politely,
request
folks
who
are
not
current
members
to
say
their
goodbyes
and
jump
into
the
private
session.