►
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
B
I'm
just
a
couple
of
things,
so
we
have
our
collab
next
club
summit
planning
meeting
and
the
next
Tuesday,
as
is
the
next
standards
working
group
meeting.
We
also
want
to
encourage
all
of
the
projects
to
get
us
us
being
the
foundation
staff
specifically
marketing,
and
that
is
Rachel
with
an
assister
of
myself
involved
early.
A
That's
alright,
they
come
to
you
later.
We
can
our
regularly
scheduled
program
just.
B
A
Excellent
and
again
I'll
remind
folks
to
add
themselves
to
the
meeting
notes,
there's
the
link
one
more
time,
jQuery
in
the
chat
which
brings
back
fond
memories
and
also
if
anybody
can
help
take
notes.
That
is
always
helpful
and
somebody
can
help
me
keep
an
eye
on
attendees,
so
I
can
let,
in
our
executive
director.
That's
always
helpful
to
you.
Thank
you
cool,
so
getting
into
the
agenda,
then
the
first
one
on
the
first
item
on
our
list
is
issue
five,
one
three
by
13.
A
This
is
an
issue
that
I
opened,
which
is
kind
of
silly,
because
it
should
just
be
a
pull
request,
but
I
thought
I'd
open
it
up
for
comments
before
I
started
working
on
updating
the
documentation,
but
this
is
updates
to
requirements
of
potential
new
regular
members.
I
was
hoping
to
convert
this
into
a
pull
request
before
this
meeting,
but
I
ran
out
of
time,
so
feel
free
to
drop
in
any
comments
here.
A
If
you
want,
but
I
will
try
to
open
up
PR
today
or
sometime
in
the
very
near
future,
and
we
can
move
forward
on
this.
This.
These
will
be
updates
to
the
Charter.
The
governance
and
the
readme
so
it'll
take
a
little
bit
of
time
to
get
it
fully
over
the
finish
line,
but
I'll
get
it
opened
up
ASAP,
so
we
can
move
things
along.
A
No
cool,
let's
see
so
next
up,
is
voting
members
chosen
by
regular
members.
I
was
thinking
about
this
earlier
today.
This
is
you
know.
According
to
our
CPC
charter,
up
to
two
voting
members
may
be
nominated
by
the
regular
members
once
nominated.
These
members
must
be
ratified
by
the
CPC
voting
members,
and
then
they
could
be
voting
members
as
well,
since
we
may
have
some
some
new
regular
members
joining
soon
I'm,
hoping
that
the
folks
that
were
part
of
the
election
recently
will
join
us.
A
A
A
You
know
not
that
often,
but
they
have
come
up
a
few
times
where
we
had
I
think
maybe
changes
to
governance
require
majority
of
voting
members
to
approve
and
then
I
think
I
think
you
know
if
there
was
anything
that
actually
required
of
votes,
which
you
know
we
expect
to
be.
Where
would
require
voting
members?
A
A
A
Get
your
nominations
in
I.
Don't
think
there's
much
around
the
process
for
this.
So
do
we
want
to
you
know
I
guess
you
can
either
nominate
in
this
issue
or
create
a
separate
issue.
It
might
make
sense
to
just
do
it
in
this
issue
and
we'll
go
from
there
and
with
it
being
open
for
a
week,
then
folks
who
want
to
become
regular
members
first,
can
do
so
and
then
also
join
the
election
for
this
process
as
well
cool
anything
else.
Yeah.
C
A
A
So
that's
a
link
to
the
regular
members
section
of
the
readme,
and
you
know
anyone
can
PR
themselves
into
the
readme
to
become
a
regular
member.
The
expectation
is
that
they
have
been
active
within
one
of
the
projects,
but
I
have
that
issue
open
that
I'll
convert
to
a
pull
request.
That's
gives
more
guidance
on
what
we
expect
from
regular
members
to
try
and
you
know,
encourage
folks
to
be
involved
and
not
just
put
their
name
down.
A
Cool
alright
moving
on
then
the
next
issue
is
503.
This
is
how
do
we
keep
code
of
conduct
up
to
date
without
upstreaming
our
modifications
to
it
feel
like
we,
we
talked
about
this
last
week,
but
I,
don't
know
where
exactly
we've
landed
and
I
was
wondering
even
about
leaving
this
one
to
the
end
and
trying
to
just
get
through
the
rest
of
the
agenda
and
then
come
back
to
this
and
kind
of
work
on
this
and
get
some
action
items.
A
A
Yeah,
that's
what
I
was
suggesting
as
well.
I
think
it's
I
think
that's
wise
any
objections
to
that
cool,
we'll
come
back
to
that
I!
Think
I,
don't
think
we'll
have
to
spend
a
lot
of
time
on
the
issues
here
from
what
I've
seen
earlier.
So
next
on
the
agenda
is
ad
code
of
conduct
and
moderation.
Information
to
open,
JSF,
org
I
know
Brian
did
some
worked
on
this.
A
The
last
comment,
14
days
ago,
code
of
conduct,
open
JSF,
dot,
org
links
to
the
COC
and
the
CPC
repo
it's
referenced
under
slash
collaboration
on
the
website
and
there's
now
a
code
of
conduct
menu
item
under
about.
Is
this
satisfied
this
for
the
time
being,
as
we
work
through
exactly
how
we're
managing
our
code
of
conduct.
A
D
A
A
D
Well
so
I
guess
the
one
thing
I
would
say
is
right:
now:
code
of
conduct
is
buried
under
about
I
think
it
should
be
in
the
main
title
bar
I.
Don't
think
it
should
be
buried,
so
it
should
be
one
of
the
tabs
at
the
top
there.
If
other
people
disagree,
I'm
not
gonna
like
push
on
it
too
hard,
but
I
think
it
should
be
a
top-level
menu.
I
agree,
I,
agree.
A
E
E
D
E
A
Yeah
agreed
I
slid
the
link
into
the
chat
to
if
folks
are
curious
or
cool,
that's
progress.
Actions.
Thank
you.
Great
next
item
on
the
list
is
self
managed,
maintainer
directory
plus
groups,
io
mailing
lists
on
Atlas
that
opens
JSF
org
Brian.
Do
you
want
to
let
us
know
where
we're
at
here
and
and
what
might
be
left
yeah
I.
E
Mean
basically
I
can
turn
this.
It's
already
basically
turned
on
I've
left
this
open,
because
I
think
Emily
had
some
questions
about
the
the
proper
way
to
do
this,
whether
we
should
have
the
the
repo
which
configures
the
mailing
lists,
whether
this
repo
ought
to
be
public
or
not.
I
haven't
really
done
a
whole
lot
of
changes
to
this,
because
I'm
I
think
I'm
waiting
for
that
to
be
resolved.
It'd
be
helpful
to
know,
but
other
than
that
I
mean
it-it's.
It's
ready
to
go
it's
just
a
more
philosophical
question
of.
A
E
G
C
G
I
was
just
gonna
comment
that,
like
in
EndNote,
literally
everyone's
emails
and
every
readme
they
participate
in
so
then
that's
been
the
standard
there.
It's
relatively
public
and
whether
it's
you
know
your
real
personal
email
or
just
a
throwaway
one.
That
has
been
the
standard,
a
note
and
I'm
own
opinionated
just
one
day
to
share
that,
and
we
also
have
our
email
open,
like
our
our
rebuttal
thing,
I.
D
Guess
the
one
thing
that
I
would
say
would
maybe
be
different
there,
although
we
could
take
it
with
a
grain
of
salt,
would
be
known
as
one
project,
and
you
know
if
their
default,
like
note,
has
historically
had
a
default
to
public
for
kind
of
everything.
But
I
don't
think
that
that
default
to
public,
for
example,
is
like
a
base
guideline
or
like
one
of
the
guiding
missions
of
open
jeaious
like
transparency.
D
Definitely
is,
but
like
that
level
of
transparency,
not
necessarily
we
have
31
different
projects,
and
I
would
not
want
the
publication
of
email,
for
example,
to
be
something
that
stops
people
from
participating.
So
I
think
a
default
to
private,
for
this
kind
of
thing
seems
reasonable
to
me.
That's.
D
C
A
E
Yeah,
and
so
there
are
a
couple
of
implications
of
that
I
think
so,
if
we
make
it
private
I
think
we'd
want
to
be
very
diligent
about
anybody.
Who's
listed
in
the
repo
should
also
be
a
member
of
the
organisation,
so
they
can
access
and
update
their
information,
and
you
know
perhaps
we
have
I
trying
to
remember
what
teams
we
have
in
the
organization,
but
we
might
have
a
team
specifically
for
maintainer
zuv
projects.
If
we
don't,
we
might
want
a
team
like
that
and.
D
If
we
have
a
team
like
that,
we
may
want
to
work
on
a
way
to
like
streamline
or
automate
the
process
of
people
joining
it.
Probably
not
like
so
streamline
that
anyone
can
click
a
button
and
then
be
a
member
probably
need
some
degree
of
vetting.
But
we
should
simplify
the
process
of
people
joining
that
yeah.
E
B
E
H
E
E
Yep
private
and
then
at
the
same
time
making
sure
that
anybody
who's
listed
in
this
is
able
to
update
their
contact
information.
So
granting
access
to
this
particular
team
was
sure
he
had
created,
which
contains
the
project
leads
or
the
project
leads
us.
They
were
six
months
ago
which
granted
access
to
that
team
to
this
repo
and
yeah.
H
E
The
the
idea
was
originally
to
make
this
more
discoverable,
so,
for
example,
if
we
were
to
say
we
have
a
team-
that's
CPC,
private
members
or
say
a
code
of
conduct
panel
for
our
code
of
conduct,
reporting
in
a
list
for
a
project
that
there's
a
an
up-to-date
list
of
who
these
people
are.
And
then
it's
kept
a
sink.
The
captains
sink
with
the
mailing
list
of
groups
Taiyo
now
one
thought
could
be.
E
If
we
keep
this
private,
we
could
also
create
an
action
that
opens
a
PR
against
each
projects,
main
repo
to
push
the
directory
file
for
that
project.
Up
to
that
repo,
so
you
make
a
change
in
here
say
it's
for
express
you
update.
The
express
maintainer,
zip
then
opens
up
PR
to
push
that
particular
file
into
is
the
e
Express
repo,
so
they
now
can
just
pull
on
this
file
has
been
created.
This
maintainer
file,
it's
just.
E
And
I
think
that's
fundamental
of
the
challenge
here.
Is
it's
very
difficult
to
manage
a
mailing
list
without
the
emails
of
the
people
are
on
that
list
and
the
fact
that
all
this
is
being
kept
in
the
same
directory
in
the
same
repo
is
gonna,
be
a
challenge
because
you
can't
make
it
selectively
public
or
private
right.
H
F
G
H
G
Mean
at
least
for
me,
I
need
more
context,
unlike
the
full
spectrum
of
who
is
gonna,
be
in
them
and
like
what
the
mailing
lists
are
actually
gonna
be
like.
Does
every
project
have
its
own
mailing
list?
How
broad
is
it
I?
Guess
it's
more
of
a
question
I
would
have
because
then
my
like,
if
we're
opting
in
hundreds
of
people,
I
mean
no
one
has
600
people
in
the
org.
You
know
for
opting
in
hundreds
or
potentially
thousands
of
people
into
this,
probably
keeping
things
better.
E
Let
me
maybe
give
a
quick
overview
here
of
how
this
solves
a
you
know.
It
solves
potentially
an
issue
here.
Ultimately,
what
this
is
meant
to
do.
It's
meant
to
do
two
things.
One
is
to
enable
projects
to
maintain
a
list,
essentially
of
who
are
the
key
technical
representatives
from
that
project.
We've
been
calling
them
maintainer
could
be
anything
else,
whatever,
whatever
term
is
used
for
the
people
who
make
the
decisions
and
with
30
some
projects,
it's
somewhat
burdensome
for
for
me
and
joori
to
go
around
and
kind
of
constantly
keep
these
lists
up-to-date.
E
So
the
thought
was
we
were
able
to
set
projects
up
so
that
they
could
maintain
their
own
information
and
then
get
a
mailing
list
and
a
directory
out
of
it
that
it
would
make
it
easier
to
keep
everybody.
You
know
up
to
date
if
the
CPC
needs
to
reach
out
to
the
maintainer
z'
of
a
certain
project
or
if
we
need
to
reach
out
to
all
projects
as
a
whole.
E
For
example,
if
there's
a
vote
or
something
like
that
or
preference
poll,
the
idea
is
that
we
would
then
have
these
lists
available
so
that
we'd
be
able
to
reach
out
to
them,
and
there
are
really
there's
no
limit
to
what
can
be
managed
through
this
I
just
have
to
pre
configure
a
list
on
the
the
group's
a
list:
server,
it
could
be
the
maintainer
x'.
It
could
be
Code
of
Conduct.
You
know
thanks
where
you
want
to
have
transparency
over
who's
receiving
who's
receiving
the
reports.
It
could
be
outreach
committees
of
various
types.
E
H
And
I
guess
my
dad
like,
if
you're
ever,
in
a
position
where
you've
mailed
to
some
one
of
these
emailing
lists
and
nobody
responds
it's
nice
to
be
able
to
look
at
the
like.
You
get
no
responses
make
to
be
able
to
look
at
the
list
and
say:
oh
Michaels
on
that
list.
I
know
him
I'm
gonna
go.
You
know,
poke
him
and
say
what
the
heck.
Where
is
it?
It's
just
a
list
that
you
have
no
idea
who's
on
it.
It's
not
as
sort
of
transparent
more
like
a
black
hole
right
exactly.
E
It
sounds
like
maybe
the
path
forward
to
here
is:
let's
maybe
just
make
this
private
for
now
and
then
Tierney
and
I
can
figure
out.
If
there's
a
reasonable
way
to
push.
You
know
certain
files
selectively
out
of
this
repo
into
project
repos,
so
that
we
get
kind
of
the
best
of
both
worlds.
You
get
a
directory
that
stays
up
to
date,
but
people's
personal
information,
the
configuration
files,
remains
private
yeah.
H
F
A
Thank
you
sure,
thank
you,
and
thanks
for
setting
up
as
well
beautiful
I
next
item
on
the
list.
Here
is
amendments
to
the
bylaws
to
ensure
a
sign-off
between
voting
CPC
members.
Thanks
Christian
for
for
opening
this,
we
had
a
little
bit
of
commentary
here.
I
know
Christian
updated
its.
Do
we
I
think
this
is
just
waiting
for
board
approval
right.
H
A
G
H
A
A
J
A
Well,
great
I'm
glad
you've
got
that
other
PR
all
ready
to
go
to
use
excellent
cool
and
mine
is
5:19,
I'll
drop
it
and
this
other
issue
and
I
don't
know.
Should
we
it's
just.
We
can
probably
close
this
now.
H
A
A
C
A
E
H
A
A
H
C
A
Crazy
times,
so
the
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
HT,
two,
four,
six
nine.
This
is
populate
the
Code
of
Conduct
panel
last
week,
I
was
trying
to
update
the
description
here
to
outline
what
it
is.
That's
you
know
who
we're
expecting
to
be
on
this
panel.
The
three
people
that
we
have
definitively
is
Robin,
nine
and
Jordan.
A
Are
we
what's
what
I'd
like
to
move
forward
on
this
I'm
wondering
what?
How
do
we
I'm
thinking,
particularly
about
the
board
and
the
CPC?
Those
seem
like
things
that
we
can.
You
know,
have
action
on
like
I
mentioned
last
week.
I
would
be
happy
to
be
on
the
panel,
but
I
don't
know
if
we
should
open
it
up
to
some
sort
of
you
know,
nomination
and
work
through
it.
What
are
people's
thoughts
about
getting
progress
on
this
so.
B
We
have
an
additional
list
of
people
that
we
also
did
direct
outreach
to
and
from
beyond
our
immediate
community.
Because
of
this
issue
of
ensuring
that
we
have
a
diverse
group
of
people
to
represent
the
you
know,
people
in
it
on
the
you
know
panel
right.
So
some
of
those
folks
are
from
sneak
from
Samsung
and
and
stuff
like
that.
So.
I
B
We
have
we
have.
We
have
an
a
list
of
names.
I
would
assume
that,
in
the
same
way,
we
are
hoping
to
keep
track
of
lists
of
people
using
the
directory
tool,
which
is
a
super
neat
way
of
managing
this
stuff.
I
think
it
would
be
great
if
we
did
something
similar
there,
so
that,
if
you,
anybody
who
is
interested
in
like
who's
on
any
particular
group,
can
kind
of
go
and
see
that
there
I'd
love
a
blow.
B
A
H
I
mean
that's:
currently,
you
know
in
what
we
have
in
the
governance.
You
know
it's,
it's
an
escalation
board
and
got
you
know,
people
who
are
the
executive
director
or
remember
the
board
CC
member
marketing
committee,
the
top
level.
You
know
top
level
projects,
the
and
I
guess
we
have
the
wording
there
wrong
with
the
non
top
level
projects.
And
then
you
know
one
a
woman
invited
outside
expert.
So
you
know
we
can
change
that,
but
we
would
need
to
to
have
you
know
a
number
of
additional
outside
people.
H
H
A
B
I
And
I
think
this
is
Robin.
The
idea
behind
this
is
we're
not
getting
nominations
from
project
mm-hmm,
so
you
know.
So
if
we
need
to
populate
a
code
of
conduct
committee,
do
we
do
so
with
folks
who
who
are
interested
in
doing
so
as
opposed
to
waiting
for
folks
who
nominate
all
of
the
folks
on
our
list
list?
They
are
with
member
companies
and
projects,
but
we
would
just
be
reaching
outside
our
typical
organizational
structure.
I
would
put
it
I
guess.
B
Maybe
even
put
in
a
more
direct
and
way,
I
think
that
we
drafted
a
idea,
a
governance
idea
for
this
before
you
know
we
kind
of
laid
the
tracks,
I
guess
before
we
knew
exactly
where
we
were
going
and
and
that's
not
taking
us
anywhere
so
I
would
suggest.
My
strong
recommendation
would
be
for
us
to
rewrite
this
part
in
a
way
that
you
know
reflects
what
we
can
get
done,
which
is
populate
a
panel
of
outside
experts
who
are
happy
to
do
this.
B
H
A
I
feel
like
maybe
we
should
have
a
working
meeting
to
really
get
a
handle
on
the
direction
that
we're
headed
and
then
align
the
governance.
Accordingly,
we
did,
we
did
have
a
code
of
conduct.
You
know
working
group
of
meeting
few
weeks
ago
a
couple
months
ago,
and
they
should
just
have
another
one
to
kind
of
align
this
and
really
just
get
this
over
the
finish
line
and
feel
like
we
have
it
in
place.
I.
B
I
C
H
B
Another
sorry
to
interrupt
Michael
but
I
think
something
that
would
be
helpful
to
just
sort
of
realign
on,
for
everyone
is
what
exactly
this
group
is
going
to
be
called
in,
to
do
right
and
because
I
think
that's
that's
a
there's
something
that
that
not
everybody
shares
which
is
like
what
is
the
role
of
this,
this
group
of
people?
How
frequently
are
we
really
going
to
be
yeah.
H
B
H
In
my
mind,
I
have
a
like,
hopefully
never
but
there's
there's,
obviously
a
role
for
a
group
of
interested
people
to
get
together
more
than
ever
and
talk
about
lots
of
important
things.
Is
it
this
group?
You
know,
maybe
maybe
not
all
right
but
yeah
I,
know
I,
agree
that
that's
a
very
good
thing
to
clarify
up
front
if
we
have
different
ideas.
B
So
I'll
say
and
as
the
person
who
interface
is
probably
the
most
with
projects
trying
to
navigate
this
for
onboarding
and
my
interpretation
of
the
function
of
this
group
of
people
is
to
step
in
and
like
it
or
be
present
and
available
in
three
specific
types
of
situations.
One
is
that
the
project's
code
of
conduct,
group
or
moderation
group,
you
know
whoever
those
folks
may
be
requests
additional
help
and
two
in
the
hopefully
exceedingly
rare
case
that
somebody
wants
to
appeal
such
a
decision
with
the
foundation
directly
and
and
what
was
the
third
one.
B
A
D
I
A
C
B
G
A
Great,
so,
okay,
so
we'll
work
on
that
I
think
perhaps.
Similarly
we
have
the
issue
that
we
punted
until
the
end-
and
we
have
now
run
out
of
time-
is
the.
How
do
we
keep
the
code
of
conduct
up
to
date?
I
think
this
was
is
also
a
good
candidate,
for
you
know
of
a
working
session
to
hash
this
out,
I
hate
to
put
more
meetings
on
people's
calendars,
but
I
would
be
happy
to
sit
down
on
this
and
try
to
make
some
progress.
The.
D
One
thing
I
would
add:
Joe
is
that
if
it's
going
to
have
a
working
session,
I
would
very
much
like
it
if
it
was
a
working
session
where
the
output
was
a
proposal
to
be
brought
to
the
CPC,
as
opposed
to
you
know,
working
session
where
they,
the
ending,
is
like
kind
of
assumed
to
be
what
will
happen.
Sure.
I
C
A
A
A
H
A
H
D
Guess
the
the
only
question
I
would
have
is
like.
Is
there
a
lot
of
value
in
distinguishing
between
the
group,
the
people
who
are
responsible
for
maintaining
it
versus
the
people
who
are
kind
of
codifying
it,
because
we're
already
talking
about
having
like
SEO
CP?
So
to
me,
that
seems
like
the
group,
who
should
be
actively
reviewing
policy
and
making
policy
suggested
changing
changes.
I
would
personally
be
a
little
bit
concerned
if
we
separated
those
two
and
had
a
group
that
was
not
actually
actively
working
off
the
like.
With
the
policy
making
suggested
policy
changes.
H
D
We
have
like
the
CPC,
who
can
kind
of
voter
agree
on
overall
changes,
and
anyone
can
be
kind
of
inspired
to
make
suggested
changes
here
or
we
could
make
sub
particularly
handle
things.
But
if
there
is
any
sort
of
like
regular
group,
that's
consistently
re-evaluating
process.
I,
think
that
should
be
the
people
who
are
actively
engaged
in
enforcing
it.
H
It
makes
me
think
of
like
we
have
voting
CPC
members
and
regular
CPC
members
right.
It's
it's
like
I
think
you
want
to
make
the
group
that
are
discussing
the
policies
as
as
open
and
and
as
many
people
as
you
can
get
in
when
you
get
to
handling
escalations
I'm,
not
sure
you
can
be
quite
so
open
and
maybe
I'm
wrong
on
that
front.