►
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
Great
all
right,
it
looks
like
we
are
streaming,
live
on
youtube,
so
thanks.
Everyone
for
joining
today
is
another
episode
of
the
openjs
foundation's
cross
project.
Council
meeting,
oh
yeah,
there
we
go
today
is
the
11th
of
august
and
yeah
paste
that
into
the
dock.
There's
the
recording
yeah
thanks
everybody
for
joining,
add
yourselves
to
the
to
the
minutes,
so
we
can
keep
track
and
I'm
a
little
behind
on
minutes,
or,
I
should
say
we're
a
little
behind
on
minutes.
A
A
B
I
will
announce
some
things
now.
One
important
announcement
is
that
we
have
opened
the
nomination
period
for
the
secondary
cpc
director
seat.
We
are
so
excited
to
have
a
lot
of
people
who
have
expressed
interest,
but
we're
opening
that
up
for
for
formal
nominations
now.
B
So,
if
that's,
if
that's
you,
if
you're
interested,
please
either
reply
with
your
self
nomination
on
the
thread
or
you
can
reach
out
to
joe
or
myself,
and
we
would
be
happy
to
facilitate
you
nominating
someone
else
if
that
was
the
case,
but
we
definitely
want
to
get
those
in
ideally
by
the
end
of
the
week,
but
we're
going
to
close
that
on
on
sunday,
so
that
we
can
start
the
voting
process
so
check
out
that
issue.
Please
please
do
that.
B
We
also
have
recently
concluded
some
elections
for
the
silver
and
in
user
seats,
but
I'm
not
sure
if
we're,
if,
if
those
have
been
publicly
announced
yet
robin.
C
B
So
I
think
it's
just
really
cool
to
see
the
community
and
and
the
board
growing,
and
that's
just
like
really
dope,
there's
no
other
way
to
put
it.
We
have
also
the
other
meetings
this
week,
including
the
standards
working
group
meeting
here
in
just
a
couple
of
hours,
a
code
of
conduct
working
group
meeting
which
has
been
added
to
the
public
calendar
on
thursday
joe.
I
think
you
have
open
office
hours
this
week.
Yes,
I
do.
I
do
yes
yeah.
B
I
do
so
that
that's
happening
and
then
also
friday.
I'm
meeting
ad
hoc
meeting
to
discuss
the
supporter
program,
which
sarah
is
seriously.
So
if
any
of
those
conversations
are
interesting,
please
please,
you
know,
raise
your
hand
and
and
tend
yeah.
Those
are
the
big
big
pieces
of
news
that
I
have
for
y'all
this
week.
A
Yeah
I'll
I'll
share
one
more
with
rachel's
help
and
and
working
with
mary
from
the
node.js
tsc.
We
have
put
together
a
user
feedback
survey
around
unhandled
promise
rejections
and
I
just
pasted
the
link
to
a
twitter
tweet,
whatever
they're
called.
If
anyone
is
familiar
with,
you
know
having
their
promise
rejections
unhandled
in
node,
please,
you
know,
take
the
survey
or
help
us
promote
the
survey
by
retweeting
or
what
have
you
yeah?
A
D
Awesome,
I
have
one
more
announcement
to
make
too
our
monthly
ask
me
anything:
is
tomorrow
it's
going
to
be
on
the
node.js
certification.
So
if
you
do
have
any
questions
on
certification,
that
will
be
a
great
opportunity
to
get
those
questions
answered.
Robin
will
be
moderating,
and
then
we
will
also
have
david
clements
and
adrian
estrada
as
our
panelists
answering
questions.
So
we
hope
to
see
you
there.
A
Great
that
sounds
fun.
Thank
you,
cool
all
right,
so
anything
else
before
we
get
into
the
agenda
anything
from
like
the
board
or
or
anything
that
we
should
talk.
A
About
no
cool
ama
happening
tomorrow,
look
at
me,
I'm
even
taking
notes
and
running
this
meeting
cool.
So
let
me
clear
that
out
so
the
I
kind
of
threw
this
on
the
agenda-
and
I
I
guess
I
put
it
at
the
top
so
we'll
we'll
start
there
real
quickly.
This
is
issue.
599.
A
emily
opened
this
up
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
This
is
about
doing
an
earlier
cpc
meeting
time.
I
believe
that
the
decision
was
to
try
a
oh
and
I
may
I
may
have
misspoke
to
here.
I
think
the
decision
I'm
looking
at
the
comments
here.
The
decision
was
to
try
1300
utc
on
august
18th,
which
I
think
I
said,
10
a.m
eastern
time,
but
I
think
it's
actually
nine
right.
A
So
let
me
edit
my
thing
here,
so
I
don't
confuse
anyone,
so
I
think
we've
decided
to
try
that
next
week,
9
00
a.m.
For
the
cpc
meeting
on
august
18th.
A
The
the
question
I
think
moving
forward
is
how,
if
we
are
going
to
continue
that
time,
how
do
we
integrate
it
into
our
cadence
of
you
know
tuesday,
cpc
meetings,
we
the
the
one
thing
to
consider.
I
mean
it
wouldn't
be
bad
to
just
kind
of
alternate
them.
You
know
the
three
times
each
every
third
week.
The
challenge
is
that
we
kind
of
alternate
with
the
standards
team
meeting,
which
happens
at
1800
utc
on
tuesdays
every
other
week,
and
so
we're
kind
of
alternating
with
that.
A
So
there
are
a
couple
of
ways
that
we
could
handle.
It
I'd
be
happy
to
hear
anyone's
ideas.
One
one
thought
that
I
had
is
that
we
perhaps
keep
one
time
and
then
alternate
the
other
two,
and
I
have
two
examples
that
I
just
pasted
into
the
chat
again,
so
we
could
do
like
1300
1600,
1800,
1600
1300,
whatever
it's
probably
easier,
if
you
just
read
it,
but
I'm
open
to
other
ideas.
Do
people
have
thoughts
about
how
we
want
to
move
forward
on
on
a
potential
new
time.
E
I
think
having
three
times
adds
complexity,
which
I
think
is
not
a
huge
problem.
I
don't
know
for
anyone,
I
think,
but
it's
the
goal
of
adding
an
extra
time
appealing
to
more
people,
and
I,
I
think,
yeah,
that's
the
idea.
A
Yeah
for
for
time,
zones
that
are
not
in
the
us.
F
I
mean,
I
think,
like
we
can
try
this
with
two
timings
rather
than
having
three
diamonds,
and
rather
than
increasing
our
complexity,
just
to
reduce
the
complexity
here
and
then
check
whether
we
have
more
people
joining
and
if
it
is
not,
then
we
can
fall
back
to
the
previous.
Our
current
scenario,
or
else
then
add
the
third
timing.
A
Yeah,
I
think
it's
the
former
that
we're
just
hoping
that
that
it
would
be
more
accommodating
to
folks.
But
I
don't
know
if
there's
specific
people
that
we
are
trying
to
accommodate.
H
I
think
the
way
we
can
manage
that
is
just
by
you
know
if
we
get
no
people
from
europe
or
european
or
asian
time
zones
in
you
know
the
first
two
or
three
meetings
like
that.
We
kind
of
know
that
we're
not
actually
doing
what
we're
setting
out
to
do,
and
we
should
at
that
point
probably
consider
reverting
or
figuring
out
different
ways.
We
can
achieve
that
goal.
G
A
Yeah,
I
think
the
nice
thing
too,
is
that
we
meet
weekly.
So
hopefully
we
can
kind
of
get
a
view
into
this,
a
little
faster
than
maybe
other.
You
know,
bi-weekly
meetings
might
take
longer.
J
I
feel
I
feel
that
we
should
have
so
you
know,
based
on
the
times
that
we
have.
We
should
have
two
meetings
and
the
same
time.
You
know
back
to
back
weeks
and
then
try
the
other
time
back
to
back
weeks,
like
the
other
alternative
that
we
have
and
then
come
do
a
comparison.
You
know
just
because
like
having
one
meeting
at
one
time
and
then
the
next
week
having
another
time
could
lead
to.
You
know
potential
members
not
like
unders,
like
getting
confused
or
being
like.
J
Oh
we're
left
out
we're
just
so
excited
about
joining
this,
but
now
I
guess
they
changed
it
kind
of
thing.
It
said
like
we
have
a
more
like
this
experiment
thing
and
then
you
can
take
the
data
and
say
okay,
which
time
works
better
for
us.
I
think
having
two
times
is
better
because
we
can
do
it.
It's
more
controlled
three
times
just
makes
it
a
lot
more
difficult
and
a
longer
process
to
get
the
potential
of
the
time
that
we
want.
E
So
sorry,
sorry,
I
don't
know
what
you're
gonna
say.
I
agree.
Two
time
zones
is
like
two
contrasting
times
makes
a
lot
more
sense,
and
I
agree
that
three
might
mean
we
lose
more
people.
K
Just
to
make
sure
that
it
gets
mentioned,
one
possibility
is
that
we
randomize
things
and
we
we
generate
randomly
the
events
in
the
calendar
and
as
long
as
they're
in
the
calendar
like
a
couple
of
weeks
ahead.
That's
that's
going
to
be
fine,
at
least
for
me,
but
on
the
other
hand,
that's
probably
not
an
opinion
that
we
want
to
go
with.
I
I
was,
I
was
going
to
say
the
one
piece
of
experience
I
have
from
trying
to
manage
this
a
few
different
ways.
Is
it
better
not
be
manual
or
require
somebody
to
do
something
like
there's
been
cases
where,
like
we've
alternated
between
times
and
then
every
third
time,
it
conflicts
with
some
other
meeting,
so
we
said
okay,
but
yeah.
We
can
figure
that
out
ahead,
we
never
figure
it
out
ahead
of
time.
We
always
conflict
so
whatever
it
has
to
be.
It
needs
to
be
something.
I
I
K
L
Can
we
make
sure
that
people
are
aware
of
this
change
people
that
are
not
on
these
calls?
That's
my
biggest
concern,
because
if.
L
A
A
good
point
well
yeah
interesting.
I
I
think
that
the
two
times
is
good
better
than
three
and-
and
I
know
that
some
folks
complain
about
the
noon
time
this
time
slot,
although
we
do
have
great
turnout
right
now,
so
I
don't
know-
I
guess
I
guess
we'll
just
do
next
week
at
this
earlier
time
and
I'm
not
sure
what
we're
doing
beyond
that.
So
I
I
rather
than
spending
a
lot
of
time
on
this.
A
Perhaps
we
should
take
it
to
the
issue
and
you
know
we
have
a
couple
of
weeks.
You
know
a
week
at
a
minimum
to
figure
out
what
we
do
beyond
next
week.
I
A
Yeah,
I
think
dylan
was
was
saying
and
I'm
not
sure
if
they
made
the
call,
because
he
was
saying
that
noon
is
always
a
hard
time
for
him,
but
we
have
19
on
on
the
call
right
now,
which
is
great
all
right.
A
So
let's
take
it
to
the
issue
and
figure
out
what
we
do
beyond
next
week,
but
know
that
next
week
we
are
doing
this
earlier
time
slot
and
you
know
please
help
promote
it-
message,
people
or
we'll
tweet
about
it
or
whatever
and
see
if
we
can
get
some
folks
on
that.
A
Yeah
brian
said
he
can
move
it
in
the
issue,
so
robin
and
rachel
have
full
access
as
well
all
right,
cool,
so
yeah,
let's
update
the
calendar
and
spread
the
word
cool.
Moving
on
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
here
is
issue.
607
sarah
opened
this
eight
days
ago
for
next
steps
for
the
supporter
program.
I
know
we
have
something
on
friday
to
talk
about
this.
Do
we
is
there
anything
more
at
the
moment,
sarah
to
share
about
this.
E
Nope,
that's
it
friday
10
a.m.
Eastern!
If
you
are
interested
in
joining,
send
me
your
email
address.
A
Great
all
right,
cool
moving
on
the
next
item
here
is
the
director
election
process,
which
michael
opened
up
two
weeks
ago.
I
think
we
have
a
plan
in
place
which
is
captured
in
the
pull
request
609
the
chris
open.
This
is
based
on
some
of
the
discussion
that
we
had
had.
A
I
I
I
don't
see
any
objections
here,
so
the
gist
is
that
the
I
guess
what
we're
calling
the
secondary
cpc
director
seat
is.
The
nominations
are
open
for
it
now
they're
open
yesterday,
they'll
be
open
for
a
week.
Next
week
we
will
start
the
voting
if
you
are
interested
in
this
seat.
A
Please
comment
on
the
issue
that
jory
raised
this
morning,
which
I
will
find
the
that
is
issue
616.,
and
so
we
will
have
the
election
open
for
a
week
next
week
and
this
is
the
secondary
seat,
and
so
the
folks
who
are
eligible
for
the
seat
are
anyone
who
is
an
active,
openjs
collaborator
which
is
defined
in
our
governance.
I
believe-
and
I
have
more
you
know-
to
to
the
link
and
everything
in
this
comment.
A
So
if
you
are
eligible
and
interested,
please
nominate
in
that
issue.
Here's
the
direct
link
to
the
charter
that
talks
about
eligibility.
The
cpc
voting
members
will
vote
on
the
nominations
as
described
in
in
the
charter
as
well.
So
yeah
everything's
in
place
get
your
nominations
in
any
comments.
Questions
want
to
talk
about
this.
A
Sometimes
I
feel
like
I'm
babbling,
but
I
guess
if
there
are
no
questions,
then
that's
good.
Is
this
a
new
position?
Sorry,
no!
This
is
the
so
for
more
context.
This
is
the
position
that
michael
dawson
is
currently
holding
for
the
first
year
and
it's
been
a
little
bit
longer
than
a
year,
because
we've
been
kind
of
working
through
the
stuff,
but
the
first
year
it
was
provided
to
the
node.js
project
as
we
worked
through
the
merger
and
everything
and
in
the
charter.
A
Previously
it
was
laid
out
that
beyond
the
first
year,
the
cpc
would
figure
out
what
you
know
where
how
to
allocate
the
seat
on
who
would
be
eligible
and-
and
we
decided,
as
I
think
expected,
that
it
would
be
open
up
to
any
of
the
projects
and
their
communities.
A
Assuming
that
you
are
an
active,
open,
js
collaborator,
which
is,
I
think,
basically
90
days,
active
collaboration
in
the
project
or
30
days
active
in
the
open,
js
foundation
and
cpc
and
so
yeah.
I
was
decided
that
moving
forward,
it
would
not
be
node
specific.
It
would
be
more
community
specific
for
the
foundation.
A
Does
that
make
sense?
Yep?
That's
all
I
want
to
know
great
great
cool
all
right.
Well,
if
there
are
no
other
comments
or
questions,
if
you're
interested,
please
jump
in
there
and
nominate
if
you
have
someone
you
want
to
nominate
email,
jory
or
me,
and
we'll
kind
of
work
through
that
process,
but
otherwise
self-nominate
in
the
issue
itself,
thanks
cool
moving
on
the
next
item
is
issue
592.
This
is
develop
annual
review
process
for
projects
emily
opened
this
up
about
23
days
ago.
A
There
has
been
some
conversation
here.
I
know
chris
hiller,
who
I
think
is
on
the
call,
also
opened
up
an
issue
around
growth
project
goal,
setting
plans
and
another
issue
opened
up
for
formalized
project
champion
a
mentor
role,
also
by
chris.
So
does
anybody
want
to
comment
on
the
current
state
of
this
and
and
how
we're
moving
forward.
A
Emily
chris.
K
K
K
The
the
next
action
on
this
one
hasn't
been
very
clear.
The
the
points
that
chris
traces
are
good
regarding
regarding
the
fact
that
this
really
needs
to
be
a
two-way
thing.
In
the
the
for
growth
projects.
K
M
I
think
in
at
least
one
of
those
issues
I
can't
remember
which
one
I
essentially,
I
think
one
of
the
next
steps
is.
We
need
some
volunteers
who
want
to.
M
Essentially,
will
work
to
define
the
role
of
a
project
mentor
or
champion
and
from
there
we'll
probably
want
actual
mentors.
So
you
need
people
to
volunteer
for
that.
But
the
first
step
in
my
mind,
is
okay.
M
We
need
to
get
a
little
group
together,
whoever's
interested
and
figure
out
what
what
a
project
mentor
should
be
doing
before
a
project
and
how
should
they
should
be
working.
But
that's
just
my
feeling
so.
E
Thanks,
I
wonder
if
this
is
an
opportunity,
so
I
think
what
I've
heard
in
these
meetings
and
what
I've
read
back
and
forth
is
kind
of
there's
a
shared
ownership
here.
That
needs
to
happen.
I
think,
on
one
hand,
there's
clear
requests
from
the
cpc
and
clear,
on
the
other
hand,
clear
requests
from
the
from
the
projects
themselves
for
mentorship
and
there's
definitely
a
motivator
on
both
sides.
I
wonder
if
there's
an
opportunity
here
to
get
some
folks
together
and
come
up
with
a
you
know.
E
I
think
here's
what
I've,
what
I've
seen
is
kind
of
everyone
thinks
this
is
important,
but
I
think
what
would
be
a
good
next
step
and,
as
is
mentioned
with
the
mentors,
is
ownership.
So
I
I'm
happy
to
help
with
this.
I
think
this
is
really
interesting,
so
if
anyone
else
wants
to-
but
I
don't
have
the
I
don't-
have
the
perspective
of
a
project,
so
I
think
getting
a
few
people
together
would
be
helpful.
A
I
don't
want
to
volunteer
anyone,
although
that's
kind
of
the
statement,
you
say
right
before
you
volunteer
someone,
but
looking
at
the
cpc
member
list
chris
and
toby
are
the
growth
and
at-large
representatives.
A
Would
you
two
like
to
work
with
sarah
to
at
least
just
be
behind
the
steering
wheel
and
and
we'll
you
know,
others
will
get
involved
and
help
help
it
to
take
shape,
but
I
think
we
need
some
folks
to
drive
it
to
some
extent.
L
Yeah,
I
mean
I
think
that
makes
sense.
You
know
both
chris
and
I
were
on
that
issue
talking
about
it
and
I
think
we
both
have
points
of
view
about
it.
So
yeah
sure
absolutely
I
mean
I'm
not
gonna
volunteer
chris,
but
I'll
volunteer
myself.
Happily
absolutely.
M
Yeah
I
mean
I
can
I
can
work
on
on
that
yeah
just
just
coming
up
with.
I
I
imagine
at
some
point.
We
would
just
like
send
a
pr
with
a
new
document
that
outlines
the
role
and
and
past
that
I'd
also
be
interested
in
mentoring
or
championing
championing
other
projects,
not
my
own
project,
but
a
different
project.
M
A
I
L
A
Yeah
and
as
sarah
pasted
there,
the
chaos
has
has
some
of
it
there.
I
think
it's
been
mentioned
in
the
issue
as
well.
E
Both
the
mentorship
and
the
both
the
mentorship
process
and
the
setting
growth
goals
together
or
are
we
splitting
them
up.
L
L
M
Yeah
yeah,
I
mean
my
first
instinct
is
to
say:
well,
let's
split
them
up,
but
well
yeah.
I
think
we'll
find
out.
A
Well,
if
you're
taking
down
names,
I
I
would
I
would
participate
in
this
process
for
sure,
and
I
think,
like
it's
been
mentioned,
it
should
be
a
360
review
all
around.
I
know
that's
kind
of
a
bigger
project
to
be
taking
on.
So
maybe
that's
you
know.
We
work
through
the
different
aspects
of
that,
but.
C
A
And
I
also
think
it's
maybe
been
mentioned
in
one
of
the
issues,
but
I
I
think
that
utilizing
you
know
maybe
transforming
the
project
onboarding
repo
into
more
of
a
you
know,
ongoing
thing,
or
maybe
we
have
a
new
repo,
but
that
makes
sense
to
kind
of
keep
them
in
place.
L
Absolutely
and
leveraging
leveraging
the
experience
we've
had
from
the
onboarding
process
to
we
had
mentors
there
so
relying
on
that
as
a
basis
seems
also
good.
What
are
the
next
steps
like
this?
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
organize
a
meeting
if,
if
that's
what
you
want.
A
And
yeah,
I
don't
know
if
we
can
catalog
somewhere
the
the
different
things
that
have
been
brought
up
and
videos
can
we
make.
A
I'm
in
favor
of
that
you
know
naming
is
an
open
question,
but
I
I
agree
with
you.
L
B
L
So
might
ask
was
specifically
like
emily
was
suggesting
we
renamed
the
onboarding
repo
to
be
for
sort
of
like
broader
project
following
yeah
and
to
have
like
more
projects
in
there,
and
my
question
was
given
that
you're
the
person
looking
at
this
on
a
regular
basis-
I
it
probably
was
brian-
are
you
okay
with
that?
Before
I
mean
that
was
my
question.
B
Yeah,
I
I
mean
I,
I
I'm
okay,
with
the
with
the
repository
being
something
that
is
like
long
like
more
flexibly
slash
longer
used.
I
think
that
that's
I'm,
plus
one
and
and
supportive
of
this
group
as
well
great.
A
Cool
all
right
great,
so
we
can
move
forward
on
that
and
that's
awesome.
Thank
you.
Moving
on
next
up
is
the
pull
request.
547
michael,
this
is
the
governance
changes
for
a
collaboration
network.
N
O
I
haven't,
I
was
out
last
week.
A
A
I
just
moved
a
couple
that
were
merged
over
to
the
done
column,
but
basically
proposed
charter
changes.
Column
is
drop
charter,
mention
of
commons
js,
then
the
one
that
we
just
talked
about
collaboration
network
governance
and
then
move
collaboration
network
proposal
to
stage
three.
I
A
Great
yeah,
I
don't
know
if
that's
just
an
fyi
or
or
what
exactly
cool
moving
on
the
next
item
is
add
foundation
wide
copyright
guidance.
This
is
pull
request,
414
and
then
I
think
I
don't
know
if
toby
added
this.
Yes.
L
A
L
Yeah
so
actually
brian
added
the
standard
footer
to
the
web,
the
repository
where
we
have
all
of
the
the
logos
and
everything
so
it
made
it
really
easy
easier
to
have
a
much
more
success
and
shorter
sort
of
like
guidance
for
the
copyright,
and
so
I
wrote
that
it's
way
shorter
than
what
we
have
before
and
I'm
not
really
sure
how
to
best
share
it
with
you,
because
I
don't
want
to
overwrite
the
work
that
brian
did.
Essentially,
it's
the
work
that
branded
but
like
was
a
lots
of
stuff
removed.
L
O
Hey
sorry,
I'm
back
now
my
connection
dropped.
Toby
came
in
in
the
middle
of
that,
but
I
think
a
new
pr
makes
sense.
Let's
just
close
the
existing
one
and
start
fresh
yeah.
A
Sure
thing
great
so
next
up
and
I
think
it's
the
final
item
here
on
the
agenda-
is
responsible
security
disclosures.
A
This
is
all
related
to
the
proposal
to
move
the
security
reporting
proposal
to
stage
three,
which
is
pull
request,
602,
which
I
guess
this
should
also
be
on
the
board,
did
I
mention
that?
Is
it
already
on
the
board.
I
I
The
only
thing
I
think
is
there
was
a
few
I
mean
there.
There
needs
to
be
a
few
changes
still
in
terms
of
like
there's
a
pr
open,
but
there's
comments
from
myself
and
mike
samuel
in
terms
of
you
know
how
it's
rolled
out
that
need
to
be
addressed
before
we
could
land
it
great.
I
Yeah
in
mind,
it
was
mostly
around
like
in
stage
three,
as
opposed
to
just
you
know,
when
we
moved
from
stage
one
to
two,
we
kind
of
renamed
the
stages.
In
this
case,
we
actually
have
to
move
the
files
into
the
main,
like
into
the
main
cpc
repo,
as
well,
as
you
know,
possibly
add
some
links
to
them
in
other
places.
G
A
Great,
so
that
is
the
end
of
our
agenda
items
I'm
trying
to
just
look
really
quickly
to
see
if
there
are
any
other
things
in
here
that
should
be
touched
on
before
we
kind
of
call
it
a
wrap
here.
I
don't
think
so.
I
think
we're
good
anything.
Anybody
else
wants
to
discuss
before
we
drop
into
a
private
session
to
kind
of
wrap
things
up.