►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - July 21 2020
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
Great
all
right
thanks
everybody
for
joining
another
web
party,
openjs
foundation,
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
the
21st
of
july.
B
C
C
You
know
we're
we're
keen
to
talk
about
stories
and
ideas
and
and
programs
and
stuff
for
the
late
summer
and
fall
so
please
feel
free
to
to
attend
and
weigh
in.
I
think
the
other
kind
of
final
thing
that
we're
doing
to
wrap
open
js
world
is
kind
of
preparing
some
documentation
with
sort
of
the
takeaways,
the
feedback,
the
the
final
numbers
and
that
kind
of
thing
from
how
everything
came
out
after
openjs
world
and
the
summit.
C
So
I
think
we'll
probably
be
talking
a
little
bit
about
that,
but
also
that's
information
that
you
know
we're
happy
to
share
or
discuss
it
some
other
time,
but
we
we
kind
of
got
that
also
wrapped
up
from
last
week's
summit
meeting,
and
I
think
the
other
kind
of
thing
that's
gonna
be
coming
up
really
soon
is
board
nominations
but
I'll,
let
brian
or
a
member
of
our
our
board.
Our
director
cpc
board
director
talk
about
that.
So
that's
what
I
got.
D
Yes,
it's
just
for
a
little
bit
of
time
to
discuss.
You
know
what
what
we're
expecting
on
august
1st
for
a
project
if
you're
using
free
digitalocean
and
what
to
do
about
it.
B
Let's
see
chris
is
joining
great,
all
right,
so
jumping
into
the
agenda
here.
The
first
item
is
a
develop
annual
review
process
for
projects.
This
is
issue
592.,
emily
created
this
a
couple
days
ago.
You
want
to
give
us
some
context
here,
emily.
F
Sure
it
was
something
I
noticed
while
going
through
the
project
participation
well
going
through
the
documentation
on
this
one
and
effectively,
we've
got
a
bit
there
saying
that
we're
gonna
do
annual
reviews
of
some
description,
and
this
is
particularly
relevant
for
growth
projects,
because
the
we've
got
language
saying
that
they're
not
supposed
to
be
engrossed
for
much
more
than
two
years
and
most
the
six
out
of
seven
of
the
growth
projects.
F
We
have
have
been
growth
projects
since
the
very
beginning,
and
there
are
parts
of
being
a
growth
project
that
I'm
not
sure
that
I've
seen
ever
for
these
projects
and
we
should
probably
be
doing
some
sort
of
review
or
then
deciding
that
we're
not
doing
that
review
for
whatever
reason.
C
G
F
F
The
expectation
there
is
that
they're
staying
roughly
at
the
same
level
as
where
they
are
or
becoming
emeritus
or
whatever,
whatever,
but
still
for
growth.
There's
an
explicit
mention
of
movement
of
change.
H
Are
there,
are
there
numbers
around,
forgive
the
question,
but
are
there
numbers
around
those
goals,
or
is
it
just
a
general
weeks
we're
looking
for
growth.
C
I
think
it's
really
general,
like
so
my
recollection
of
the
idea.
Slash
goal
for
the
growth
category
was
to
provide
a
space
for
a
project
to
come
in
and
say,
there's
some
specific
objective
and
that
might
be
to
actually
grow
the
number
of
people
who
are
on
our
maintainer
team,
which
is
certainly
different
than
growing
the
number
of
implementations
of
the
thing.
So
I
think
we
were
fair.
We
were
not
so
specific
about
what
like
factor.
We
expected
that
growth
to
take
knowing
that
growth
meant
different
things
for
different
people.
A
C
I
know
that
that
was
something
we
talked
a
lot
about
and
actually
something
that
I
very
much
argued
against,
because
I
think
that
not
that
impact
is
not
always
the
objective
or
like
the
like
final
resting
state
of
all
of
our
projects,
that
we
would
have
projects
that
had
some
targeted
growth
goal.
But
in
fact,
like
being
a
big
impact,
anchor
project
was
not
necessarily
like
the
right
thing
for
them.
C
So
I
I
always
thought
that
growth
was
something
that
was
more
of
a
like
a
state
and
that
when
they
were
in
this
stage
like
they
were
working
to
improve
that
state,
but
that
the
outcome
could
be
that
they
are
they
go
back
to
at
large
or
they
are
an
impact
project
because
that
really
did
fit.
Slash
was
their
goal,
but
that
that
was
that's
always
been
sort
of
my
perspective
on
it,
and
I
know
that
others
have
also
disagreed.
So
that's
fine.
B
Yeah
and
I
think
that's
the
sort
of
thing
that
could
be
ongoing,
it
doesn't
need
to
be
like
you
have
two
years
to
get
out
of
growth,
you
could
be
continuing
to
grow,
but
looking
at
the
documentation
here
in
the
project
progression
file,
it
does
seem
to
imply
that
you
know
that
a
plan
is
is
expected.
B
I
don't
know
I
mean
I
think
in
general.
The
sentiment
is
good,
that
we
should
have
an
annual
group
review
process
and
we
may
want
to
actually
review
some
of
the
wording
in
this
document
to
to
align
to
what
we
think
you
know
our
foundation
and
its
projects
need.
A
A
But
like
should
there
be
a
quarterly
review
on
the
cpc
to
say
you
know:
are
we
supporting
the
growth
projects,
and
this
is
the
foundation
supporting
those
growth
projects
or
you
know,
because
I
think
the
the
intent
was
they
need
a
bit
more
help
a
bit
more
focus
and
it
seems,
like
you
know,
we've
gotten
through
the
base,
aesthetic
setting
up
of
our
processes
and
stuff,
but
so
maybe
that's
a
good
time
to
look
at
like
okay.
What
do
we
do?
A
B
F
I
would
suggest
that
if
we
can
agree
at
this
time
that
at
a
minimum,
our
expectation
is
for
each
of
these
projects
to
have
a
growth
plan
for
the
next
step
to
at
least
include
getting
in
touch
with
each
of
these
growth
projects
and
basically
reminding
them
that
hi
you're
supposed
to
have
this
thing
and
we're
gonna
we're
now
planning
on
figuring
out.
How
do
we
do
these
reviews?
F
C
C
You
know
what
that
process
should
be
like,
because
I
think
that
would
really
help
that
would
feel
better
than
just
saying:
here's
here's,
what
we're
saying
that
you
should
do,
but
how
about
you
knew
that
you
had
to
do
this
eventually,
the
time
is
now,
let's
see
if
we
can
get
some
input
from
the
current
growth
projects
in
shaping
that
and
making
that
something
that
makes
sense
for
them.
B
Yeah-
and
I
don't
I
don't-
want
to
sorry
to
interrupt
emily-
I
I
don't
want
to
burden
projects,
you
know
unduly,
so
we
may
even
want
to
have
some
like.
B
A
B
So
I
know-
maybe
maybe
we
should
even
just
start
with
like
a
hackmd
file
or
something
to
start
to
capture
some
of
these
things
and
then
from
there
we
could.
We
could
drop
in
a
pr
and
iterate
from
there.
F
And
possibly
pre-annually
reserve
one
of
the
cpc
meeting
slots
in
some
number
of
weeks
for
this.
B
I
I'm
going
to
move
on,
but
if
someone
wants
to
just
even
create
a
hackmd
file
with
a
title
and
make
it
public
and
drop
it
into
the
issue-
and
maybe
just
mention
to
you
that
we
it
should
be
a
two-way
process
and
and
that
we
should
perhaps
set
aside
some
time
in
a
future
meeting
to
hash.
This.
B
J
Thought
I
just
sorry
to
interrupt.
I
just
had
a
quick
question.
Maybe
we
can
clarify
later.
You
know
I
wanted
to
understand
when
we
mentioned
the
growth
project
or
you
know
the
growth
as
a
whole.
What
exactly
like
what
factors
or
variables
are
we
looking
to
actually
gauge
that
growth
is
happening
within
the
project
or
we
have
been
able
to
help
the
project
grow
as
a
whole?
You
know
like
what
are?
Are
there
factors
or
any
you
know
variables
that
we're
looking
into.
B
I
mean,
I
think,
that's
largely
probably
defined
by
the
projects
themselves,
in
collaboration
with
the
cpc,
so
it
may
be
for
project
basis,
but
I
think
you
know
adoption
community.
There
are
a
variety
of
things
that
I
could
see
being
on
a
growth
plan.
B
A
Yeah,
I
think
the
the
only
thing
all
that
is
it
depends
on
what
the
goal
is.
I'm
just
looking
at
the
definition
which
I
can
paste
here
and
and
not
to
say,
you
know
that
we
shouldn't
change
it
to
something,
but
this
is
what
the
current
documentation
says,
which
is
the
growth
stages
for
projects
that
are
interested
in
reaching
the
impact
stage,
so
that
would
influence
some
of
the
goals
right
like
I
think
there
there'll
be
specific
goals
to
the
project,
but
it's
like.
A
B
Yeah
and
I
think
that
we
should
revisit
some
of
this
framing
and
phrasing
as
as
a
part
of
this
review
process,
because.
B
Yeah
all
right
cool
next
up
is
issue
590.
This
is
an
fyi
for
some
some
changes
to
foundation
bylaws
michael.
Do
you
want
to
give
a
quick
update
on
this.
A
Yeah
I
mean
last
week
I
had
mentioned
some
changes.
It
was
asked
that
I
put
them
into
a
an
issue,
so
this
is
that
issue.
You
know
it
just
highlights
the
main
changes,
and
you
know
if
there's
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
answer
them
great
best
of
my
ability,
anyway,.
B
Thank
you.
I
am
sorry,
I'm
already
moved
on
the
next
item.
Does
anybody
have
anything
more
on
that
or
shall
I
move
on.
B
The
next
agenda
item
is
pull
request
587.
This
is
the
board
seat,
definitions
and
process
that
I've
been
working
on.
I
I'm
just
re-requesting
review
from
everyone
now,
because
I
pushed
some
changes
up
and
let's
see
I
tried
to
clarify
some
things.
B
I
got
less
specific
about
seat
names
and
referred
to
the
bylaws.
I
kind
of
cleaned
up
the
language
around
active
open.js
collaborator,
and
so
I
think
this
is
looking
pretty
good,
but
I'd
love
to
have
everybody's
eyeballs
on
it
and
we
can
try
to
move
it
forward.
There's
a
board
meeting
later
this
week
is
that
right?
B
Yes,
there
is
so
yeah.
We
can
get
folks
to
put
a
thumb
on
this.
You
know,
assuming
it
looks
good
to
everybody,
then
we
can
have
the
board
take
a
look
at
it.
B
B
All
of
the
projects
are
represented
in
in
the
voting
members,
whereas
the
regular
members
could
be.
You
know
lean
towards
certain
projects
more
lee.
I
don't
know
what
I'm
saying
there,
but
so
the
decision
last
we
spoke
was
to
just
make
the
voting
members
vote
right
now
and-
and
we
can
kind
of
continue
to
evaluate
this
process
going
forward.
B
I
also
got
a
chance
to
use
the
word
tertiary,
which
I
try
to
use
whenever
I
can,
and
I
think
that
that's
that's
it
in
terms
of
the
things
that
I
want
to
make
sure
people
saw
all
right
cool,
so
yeah,
please
take
a
look.
Thank
you
any
comments
or
questions
there
great.
If
not
the
next
one
is
updating
cla
to
apache
style,
icla
and
ccla
any
any
anything
here
to
talk
about.
B
B
All
right,
yeah,
good,
great
cool,
what's
any
next
steps
or
anything,
or
should
we
remove
the
tag
or
what?
What
should
we
do
here.
A
I
think
jury
had
sent
out
an
email
to
the
maintainers,
just
raising
the
issue
right
you're
on
mute.
B
Yeah
five,
maybe
three.
C
Yeah,
so
brian
and
toby
have
largely
done
the
lift
on
this,
and
we
sent
out
a
direct
request
to
maintainers,
particularly
those
who
aren't
always
plugged
into
the
happenings
of
the
cpc,
got
a
lot
of
feedback
based
on
that
and
largely
the
feedback
seems
to
be
just
concern
over
implementation,
details,
making
sure
that
transitions
aren't
too
rough
for
for
communities
and
that
kind
of
thing,
but
it
looks
like
this
really
is
a
I
I
can
consensus.
Yes,
let's
move
this
way
so
excellent.
B
H
Yep,
sorry
about
that,
I
was
getting
all
my
things
unmuted
and
on
off
so
move
the
project
over
to
phase
one.
So
I
think
there's
a
few
things
here
outstanding.
I
think
the
big
question
continues
to
be
the
newsletter.
I
don't
know
how
we
traditionally
determine
these
things.
I
think
there's
plenty
of
argument
for
plenty
of
argument
against.
I
think
so.
That's
one
open
item.
I
think
two.
The
second
open
item
is
a
lot
of
things.
H
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
things
that
are
yet
to
be
determined
such
as
where
the
page
will
be
hosted.
How
outreach
will
happen
those
types
of
questions,
so
my
goal
for
this
week
is
to
kind
of
get
a
list
of
those
questions
together
on
the
dock,
so
those
can
start
to
be
hammered
out.
So
that's
for
me,
but
I
think
an
action
item
for
the
group
is
determining
the
new
the
newsletter
question.
H
I
think
the
arguments
for
the
newsletter
is
not
creating
any
new
work
having
something
that
is
of
value
to
offer
supporters
and
the
fact
that,
right
now
the
newsletter
has
a
little
over
100
subscribers.
H
H
I
think
that's
a
big
one
against
I'd
love
to
hear
from
anyone
else,
but
I
think
in
I
think
it
keeping
the
newsletter
open
is
a
great
idea
and
what
I
would
ask
is
just
if,
instead
of
just
killing
that
idea
and
not
replacing
it
with
something
new,
I
think
it
would
be
great
to
have
an
idea
of
what
we
can
offer
supporters
that
will
be
valuable
to
them.
C
I
I
just
had
raised
my
hand
to
just
advocate.
You
know
like
it's
also
not
clear
to
me
exactly
how
we
reached
this
decision,
but
I
certainly
strongly
support
the
idea
of
including
this
newsletter
as
part
of
a
introductory
benefit
toward
to
our
individual
supporters,
and
if
it
doesn't
really
matter
much
to
them,
we
can
stop
doing
it
at
some
point
and
and
change
it
out
with
something
else.
C
There's
no,
no
reason
why
we
have
to
you
know,
marry
this
idea
forever
and
ever
and
ever
so
you
know
for
for
those
that
that
care
you
know
I
I
would
love
to
see
it
convert
to
that
and
and
plus
one.
But
you
know
it's
not
my
not
my
call.
H
I
really
I
like
the
idea
of
keeping
this
sign
up
there,
but
offering
it
as
a
perk
as
well.
It
seems
like
the
best
of
both
worlds.
Is
there
any
reason
not
to
do
that
jory?
What
do
you
think.
C
Any
reason
not
to
to
keep
it
open
and
included
as
a
benefit
yeah-
I
I
don't
I
mean
I
don't
know
why
not
like
I.
I
never
knew
why
not
in
the
first
place,
so
I
still
don't
know
because,
frankly,
you
know
right
now:
it's
it's
open
right,
yeah,
it's
a
bit
of
a
chore
to
find
it.
You
know
because
the
group's
I
o
system
is
a
little
weird.
You
may
not
see
that
you
can
sign
up
for
that.
So
and
it's
certainly
still
accessible.
It's
not
super
discoverable.
C
The
event
individual
membership
or
supporter
sorry
program
makes
it
more
discoverable
and
easier
for
us
to
sign
those
folks
up
for
it,
but
other
it's
still.
You
know
anybody
can
read
it
it's
on
groups.
I
o
you
just
go.
Look
at
the
archives.
Yeah,
that's
great!
I
think.
H
That's
a
good,
I
think
that
kind
of
solves
it
all,
but
okay,
great
idea.
I
think
yes,
excellence.
B
All
right
cool,
so
thanks
for
working
on
that,
sarah
and
a
few
you
know
I
don't
know
if
we
we
could
create
like
a
slack
channel
or
even
just
do
it
in
cpc.
But
if
you
have
any
questions,
I'm
happy
to
help
here.
B
Great,
so
moving
on.
The
next
item
is
issue
567.
This
is
incubation
process
clarifications
I
opened
this
a
while
ago.
This
needs
a
pr
to
move
forward.
It
has
a
pr
great
sorry.
B
Damn
it
sorry
give
me
one.
Second,
I
have
I
mentioned
that
I
hate
google
voice
there
we
go.
I
don't
know
if
you
could
hear
that,
but
a
phone
was
ringing
in
my
ears
and
I
couldn't
do
anything
else
great,
so
you
have
a
pr
open.
I
see
it.
This
is
591.
B
For
folks
on
the
call
here-
okay,
so
you
want
to
give
us
some
context
here,
emily
I'm
sorry
to
interrupt
your
beer.
F
It's
effectively
doing
what
the
suggestion
that
I
made
in
the
issue
does
matteo
at
least
looked
at
it.
I
updated
it
a
little
bit
based
on
that.
I
would
welcome
more
eyes
on
that
and
more
approvals
and
and
or
comments,
and
then
we
can
take
it
forward
from
there.
F
Intended
no
it's
because
we've
already
got
the
list
of
projects
in
the
readme.md
file
and
at
least
the
last
102
updates
of
that
list
of
projects
have
not
touched.
The
project's
md
file
we're
clearly
not
dealing
well
with
duplicating
the
same
data
and
we
get
no
utility
out
of
having
a
separate
projects.
Md
file.
B
Yeah,
that's
fair
cool,
all
right
yeah.
It
looks
good
to
me
if
folks
could
take
a
look
at
that
pr
and
get
their
thumb
on
it
as
well.
That
would
be
awesome
moving
on
security
reporting
proposal,
the
stage
two
michael,
you
got
a
comment
already
in
the
notes.
A
B
I
don't
see
any
new
comments
since
your
last
comments,
so
rock
and
roll
excellent.
Thank
you
michael.
Let's
see
so
this
is
another
michael
dawson
pull
request:
547
governance
for
collaboration,
network
yeah.
A
So
the
proposal
landed
at
stage
two.
I
just
need
to
open
one
at
stage
three
and
then
get
you
know,
put
it
forward
to
the
board,
along
with
the
governance
for
approval,
which
is
needed
before
we
landed
at
stage
three
great,
and
is
that
something
you'll
take
to
them
in
the
upcoming
meeting?
I
will
try
and
do
that-
I'm
not
going
to
be
able
to
make
the
upcoming
meeting,
but
chris
is
going
to
be
able
to
be
there.
So
I'll
coordinate
with
him
on
that.
Okay,
great.
B
Thank
you
so
the
next
one
is
issue
526.
This
is
select
voting
tool
for
for
votes,
emily
added
the
label
here.
I
think
that
it
makes
sense
to
as
tierney
said,
just
pick
one
and
we'll
go
from
there.
B
What
do
we
did?
We
use
oppo
vote
last
time,
camera.
F
C
So
I
ran
it
last
time
and
it
was
for,
I
think,
the
last
time
we
used
it
was
for
the
regular
members
to
vote
for
their
voting
member.
I
think
yeah
yeah,
so
that
was
more
of
like
the
first
time.
We'd
used
it
and
it
worked
well
because
we
had
like
30
something-ish,
regular
members
who
were
taking,
who
would
be
eligible
to
participate.
C
Brian
and
robin,
and
I
were
discussing
on
our
staff
call
on
on
monday
that
for
smaller
groups,
it's
probably
better
slash.
You
know
easier
for
us
to
go
ahead
and
do
a
mailing,
a
mail
vote,
but
I
think
a
vote
by
mail
email.
I
should
say,
but
for
cpc
we'd
like
to
continue
to
use
opavote,
because
it
is
easy
to
administer
and
yeah.
C
Yeah,
that's
a
good
question.
I
mean
I
would,
I
think,
the
cpc,
I
guess
the
cpc
could
I
mean
I
would
assume
that
staff
would
take
care
of
executing
votes
and
so
just
for
memory,
everyone,
that's
robin
brian
myself
and
rachel.
So
we
could
do
that.
You
could
have
a
elections
subcommittee
of
the
cpu.
A
C
C
D
C
G
D
B
Great
closing
comments,
so
I
that
that's
all
taken
care
of,
I
included
the
operations
at
openjsf.org
email
for
election
support,
and
I
think
that's
done
and
done
unless
anyone
has
anything
else
cool.
So
next
on
the
list
is
second
director's
seat,
which
I
think
you
know
is
blocked
by
the
process
and
definitions.
Pr
that
is,
that
is
near
its
final
stages.
B
B
If
I
don't
hear
toby
chime
in,
I
will
assume
that
he's
not
on
the
call
and
we
will
continue
holding
on
that
one
and
then
the
last
one.
No
second
to
last
one
is
responsible
security,
disclosures
which
relates
to
566.
As
michael's
already
commented
in
the
notes
here
that
that
is,
you
know
there
are
no
new
comments.
We
agreed
to
land,
so
that's
moving
forward
and
the
last
one.
It
appears
that
we
have
a
draft
proposal
for
common
js
commons,
json.
E
F
This
is
me
digging
it
up,
because
I
are
another
thing
I
noticed
our
governance
mentions
commerce.js
then
I
was
digging
up.
What
the
heck
is
this
thing
and
then,
when
looking
at
it
and
we've
never
done
anything
about
it,
could
we
just
you
know,
drop
it
for
now
and
maybe
return
to
it
later.
If
we
actually
feel
like
it,
I
think.
B
Yeah,
it
was
dropped
until
you
brought
it
up
again
thanks
emily
you're.
Welcome
that
that
issue
is
still
open.
I
did
not
open
it
yeah
I
mean
it's,
it's
interesting
and
it
may
be.
You
know
something
to
be
considered
amongst
the
collaboration
space
work.
I
mean
I
found
this
concept
interesting
when
we
were
merging
the
foundations,
so
I
hesitate
to
just
like
you
know,
cut
it
out,
but
we
should
revisit
it
and
see
if
it
makes
sense
and
the
current.
B
You
know
where
we
are
in
the
foundation
right
now
and
how
it
fits
in.
C
I
think
one
of
the
things
that
I
was
hoping
that
we
would
kind
of
suss
out
as
part
of
our
discussion
and
pushing
the
collaboration
network
idea
forward
is
more
of
an
understanding
of
what
the
this
you
know.
It
is.
Is
the
collaborative
collaboration
network
sort
of
like
the
next
evolution
of
that
thinking
of
the
value
of
a
commons,
js
program,
and
so
commons
js
program
is
deprecated
in
favor
of
collaboration
network
or
is
that
too?
Are
they
two
separate
like
things,
and
so
that's
that's
one
of
the
things
I
hope
to
explore
more.
A
I
I
think
there
are
different
things
and
at
least
in
my
mind,
in
that
my
understanding
of
the
commons
gs
was,
you
know,
there's
there'll
be
projects
that
are
too
small,
not
a
fit
whatever
you
know,
for
whatever
reason
doesn't
make
sense
for
them
to
join
the
foundation,
but
can
the
foundation
still
provide
some
level
of
support
to
those
projects?
So
you
know
there
might
potentially
be
some
large
number
of
projects
that
we
provide
some
smaller
amount
of
support
to,
and
I'm
not
sure.
K
B
I
A
Like
this
is
the
description
that
matteo
had
right,
the
whole
idea
behind
comedy
is
to
provide
resources
to
the
ecosystem,
for
whatever
reason
coder
want
to
apply
to
be
a
full
project.
This
typically
applies
to
small
projects,
not
really
worthwhile
to
move
to
the
foundations,
they're
maintained
by
one
or
two
individuals.
B
A
A
J
F
F
F
And
that
we
are
intending
this
is
still
important
for
us
to
be
able
to
do
that,
we're
seeking
to
solve
some
of
these
issues
via
the
collaboration
network
and
that
later
we
might
feel
like
we
want
to
return
to
this,
in
which
case
we're
gonna.
You
know
process
it
again,.
A
B
Yeah
all
right
yeah,
let's,
let's
do
that,
I
mean,
I
think
it's
it's
interesting
concept
and
we
shouldn't
we
should.
We
should
keep
it
in
mind
as
we
move
forward
on
other
things.
B
Yeah
yeah
all
right
great.
I
think
let
me
find
the
notes.
Where
are
they?
That
was
the
last
item
and
I
was
hoping
to
stop
at
about
15
minutes
till
so
we're
doing
all
right
here.
So
should
we
call
it
a
wrap
on
the
public
meeting
and
jump
into
private
session
for
a
moment
or
actually
brian
you
had
you
wanted
to
ask
about.
D
D
Yes,
so
this
has
come
up
with
a
few
projects
in
a
few
different
ways,
but
for
those
who
aren't
aware,
digitalocean
had
sent
out
an
email
about
a
month
ago.
They
are
ending
their
free
droplet
tier,
which
I
am
not
sure
how
much
this
is
going
to
affect
some
of
the
former
jsf
projects.
I
do
know
that
for
a
substantial
number
of
droplets,
which
were
spun
up
by
various
projects
over
time,
you
know
really
over
the
past
years.
D
So
if
you
do
have
a
question
about
how
this
would
work
or
if
august
first
rolls
around-
and
you
are
a
maintainer
of
one
of
the
you
know
former
jsf
projects
and
get
a
bill,
please
reach
out
to
me-
we
will
get
this
figured
out
for
you
one
way
or
another.
B
B
B
Yeah,
good
clarification
very
good.
All
right,
let
me
see,
can
I
maybe
michael,
can
you
stop
the
live
stream,
we'll
jump
into
private
session.