►
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
Great
assuming
we
are
already
live
thanks.
Everyone
for
joining
another
episode
of
the
cross
project
council
meeting
part
of
the
open.js
foundation
today
is
april
26
of
2022.
A
I
will
drop
the
recording
link
into
the
doc,
and
here
is
the
doc
for
folks
to
follow
along
and
help
take
notes
and
all
that
great
stuff.
Add
yourself
as
attended
and
we'll
get
into
things.
How
about
announcements?
A
B
Gosh
well,
we
have
we've
been
going
really
hard
on
the
events,
and
you
know
we
always
thank
our
programming
committee
for
all
the
time
that
they
put
in
and
especially
over
the
last
couple
weeks,
because
we
finalized
speakers.
We
got
the
in-person
schedule
for
the
breakout
in
the
keynote
rooms
set.
We're
almost
done
almost
done
with
our
virtual
speaker
roster,
and
we're
also
planning
the
community
theater
space.
So
we've
got
those
updates
coming
at
you
very
soon.
We
want
to
encourage
everyone
to
sign
up
for
the
event.
B
Let
us
know
you
know
that
you're
coming,
we
have
goodies
for
our
javascript
landia
participants
and-
and
we
hope
to
see
everybody
there
and,
of
course,
if
you're
interested
in
getting
involved
in
the
event
in
some
way
feel
free
to
pop
into
the
programming
committee
meetings
and
just
on
javascript.
C
B
I
guess
one
quick
thing
and
I
want
to
say
thanks
also
to
waleed
who's,
been
doing
a
lot
of
organizing
of
the
collab
summit
stuff,
and
so,
if
your
project
is
interested
in
having
space,
small
or
large,
you
know
big
groups,
small
groups,
long
time
short
time,
whatever
for
collab
summit
time,
definitely
reach
out
to
waleed.
B
One
more
thing
I
almost
forgot:
sorry,
I
always
get
excited
the
javascript
landia
awards,
nominations
and
we're
getting
a
lot
of
really
great
nominees,
and
that
nomination
form
is
open
through
the
29th.
B
We
have
six
different
areas
that
we're
looking
to
recognize
people
who
made
a
difference
in
the
ecosystem,
so
you
know
feel
free
to
nominate
one
or
more
folks
that
you
feel
are
deserving
of
a
a
thank
you
great
one.
C
Luke
back
graduated
yesterday,
so
out
of
incubation,
so
that's
pretty
fun.
We
had
a
blog
post
yesterday
about
that.
So
that's
cool.
E
I
have
a
small
one
as
well:
nvm
has
a
new
logo
thanks
to
our
resident
openjs
foundation,
designer
I'm
pretty
stoked
about
it.
Take
a
look.
B
B
Because,
since
our
last
meeting,
we
also
announced
that
the
node.js
project
is
the
initial
project
for
the
alpha
omega
project
at
open
source
security
foundation.
B
So
we're
really
excited
me
doubly
so
because
I
get
to
work
with
both
groups
to
see
that
partnership
and
to
help
node.js
and
hopefully
more
of
the
open
js
projects
with
security,
related
issues
and
improvement,
and
support
so
check
out
that
blog
and
congrats
to
the
node.js
community
and
openssf.
For
that
big.
C
Announcement,
it's
cool
I've
been
seeing.
You
know
the
community
already
get
together
and
talk
about
metrics
and
best
practices
and
how
those
can
cascade
to
other
open,
js
and
javascript
community
projects.
So
we'll
be
doing
a
lot
of
communication
about
that,
so
everyone
can
benefit
from
that
program.
That's
great!
That's
really!.
A
C
A
Nope,
it's
a
real
it's
a
real
snare
anyway
cool,
so
announcements
are
in
the
bag
we
can
get
into
the
agenda.
Oh,
I
see
somebody's
backing
me
up
on
the
notes.
Great,
thank
you.
Excuse
me
cool.
So
without
further
ado,
we'll
get
to
the
agenda.
The
first
item
on
the
list
here
is
voltrec
master.
As
a
regular
member.
I
was
going
through
this
before
this
looks
good.
I
think
we've
exceeded
the
the
time
limit
too.
So
oh
yeah
21
days.
E
A
A
F
Should
we
leave
it
open
until
we
till
we
get
that
sorted?
I
think
we
should
probably
just
make
separate
issues
for
that,
because
I
think
that's
a
broader
discussion
than
the
the
specific
topic.
That's
in
this
issue,
which
has
been
resolved
yeah
I'm
happy
to
go
ahead
and
make
a
term
limit
thing
from
this.
A
A
Excellent
moving
on
the
next
pull
request.
Next
item
is
a
pull
request
851..
This
is
the
pr
that
was
opened
around
the
contributor
covenant
code
of
conduct
and
we
had
a
working
session
last
week.
A
Correct
me
if
I'm
wrong
robin,
but
I
think
we're
trying
to
get
some
folks
in
to
continue
the
conversation
and
and
see
how
we're
going
to
move
forward
on
these
things.
C
Yeah
we
thought
coming
out
of
our
working
group
session.
We
thought
it
might
be
nice
to
invite
a
a
subject
matter,
expert
or
somebody
who's,
pretty
active
in
the
contributor
covenant
to
come
present
to
the
cpc,
and
then
we
need
another
working
session
to
get
our
process
and
ducks
in
a
row
as
well.
E
It
seems,
like
I
mean,
is
there
it
seems
like
the
concern
was
that
if
it
doesn't
say
project
we
might
be
forced
to
ban
people
commute
like
foundation
wide,
and
then
we
would
be
forcing
projects
to
do
things
they
may
not
want
to
do.
But
that
is
not
the
intention
nor
like.
Nor
are
we
compelled
to
do
anything
just
because
the
code
of
conduct
empowers
us
to
it's.
E
Just
saying
that
like
and
the
whole
point
of
a
code
of
conduct
is
that
we
are
empowered
to
do
a
lot
of
things,
because
we
in
just
in
case
and
so
it
seems,
unnecessarily
limiting
to
add
the
word
project
in
there
and
I'm
I'm
not
clear
on
what
what
presentation
would
change
that?
E
Having
that
context
is
still
valuable,
but
I'm
just
not
like.
I
can't
conceive
of
how
any
new
information
will
be
introduced.
D
E
G
Wrong.
Thank
you
please
clarify.
The
issue
is
that
the
2.0
version
was
first
released
with
the
word
project,
which
is
what
we
ended
up
copying
into
our
repository.
Then
the
2.0
version
was
updated
to
remove
the
word
project
with
no
communication
whatsoever
and
now
as
we're
updating
to
2.1,
we
would
be
bringing
that
change
in
the
challenge.
Here.
G
Is
that
effectively
when
we
had
the
discussion
now,
I
think
what
two
three
years
ago,
at
the
last
physical
opengl
last
physical
contributor
summit,
we
we
had
a
discussion
that
didn't
quite
conclude
exactly
on
how
we
all
feel
about
this,
and-
and
this
is
bringing
to
the
before
the
fact
that
we
have
this
open
discussion.
That
is
not
exactly
settled
on
where
we
are,
and
yes,
the
technical,
specific
thing
that
we're
talking
about
here
in
the
pr
is
like
minimal
and
is
a
completely
aside
thing.
G
E
Okay,
fair,
thank
you
for
the
clarification
I.
If
we
need
to
do
more
discussion,
not
during
this
current
meeting,
then
that's
fine
it
just
I
I
haven't
seen
anyone
speak
up
to
say
that
that
they
believe
that
what
the
code
of
conduct
says
as
a
possible
consequence,
translates
to
a
mandated
consequence.
E
I
think
the
only
reason
they
removed
the
word
is
so
it
could
be
supported
by
things
that
aren't
projects,
but
for
us
right,
like
the
the
code
of
conduct,
is
per
project,
so
I
don't
think
removing
or
adding
the
word
actually
changes,
the
meaning
it
just
like
makes
it
it's
not
just
like
self-referential
right,
yeah,
and
so
I
I
think
we
might
as
well
remove
it
since.
D
What's
in
the
code
of
conduct,
isn't
so
important
but
like
if
we
want
to
change
or
extend
the
current
expectation,
and
my
understanding
of
that
is
like
there
is
no
agreement
that
we
would
for,
we
would
ban
across
all
the
projects.
So
as
long
as
we
said,
like
you
know,
adopting
this
new
one
doesn't
change.
That
is
our
understanding.
F
I
have
two
things
on
that,
so
one
I
think
it
is
worth
keeping
in
mind
that
part
of
the
openg
how
how
our
governance
is
set
up
is
that
projects
can
adopt
our
kind
of
conduct.
So
they
can,
I
think,
like
I
think,
node
does
this.
I
could
be
wrong.
It's
been
a
while,
since
I've
like
gone
back
and
traced
all
the
files,
but
I
believe
node
has
its
own
code
of
conduct.
F
That
is
basically
the
exact
same
one,
but
projects
can
also
point
to
the
open,
js
foundation
code
of
conduct
and
have
that
as
their
code
of
conduct
and
each
project
might
have
things
under
it
that
are
not
themselves
projects.
So,
for
example,
excuse
me,
for
example,
I
don't
know
some
like
community
like
something
like
comcom
right,
where
it's
not
necessarily
obviously,
comrade
doesn't
exist
anymore,
but
community
focused
things
that
aren't
projects
like
it's
not
like
code.
That
would
theoretically
be
impacted
by
this
wording.
F
Change
right,
and
I
think
that
that's
probably
a
good
change
to
not
include
project.
I
I
I'm
a
bit
lost
in
the
thread
of
which
one
is
which,
despite
which
one
we're
going
down,
but
I
think
it's
good
to
be
more
inclusive
in
that.
I
also
think
that
if
we
are
gonna
make
changes,
I
would
I
think,
a
good
approach
to
making
those
changes
is
not
to
actually
change
our
code
of
conduct,
or
at
least
not
change
the
root
file,
but
have
a
patch
file.
F
F
At
this
point,
which
I
really
kind
of
like
and
stuck
to
or
stuck
with
me,
which
is
this
kind
of
templated
code
of
conduct,
is
something
that
is
a
good
basis
and
modifying
it
to
fit
our
needs,
and
I
I
hope
I
hope
I'm
correcting
correctly
attributing
this
to
miles.
F
I
hope
it
wasn't
someone
else,
I'm
pretty
sure
it
was
miles,
but
changing
it
and
tweaking
it
to
our
needs
is
something
that's
positive
and
healthy,
and
I
think
that
we
should
do
that
if
we
do
see
that
see
fit
for
that-
and
I
think
doing
that
separately
in
a
patch
file-
or
something
like
that
is-
is
a
good
approach.
I
I
I
think
this
seems
like
an
opportunity
to
have
this
conversation
of
whether
or
not
the
and,
if
it's
like,
just
if
it's
we're
thinking
about
just
a
word,
yes
or
no,
it
seems
like
if
it's
just
a
word,
then
we
should
definitely
dive
into
a
deeper
and
maybe
to
tyrion's
point
patch
or
something
like
that
might
be
helpful,
because
I-
and
the
reason
for
this
is
that
I
really
like
three
really
good
reasons
for
this.
I
So
we
ask
all
the
projects
to
adopt
a
code
of
conduct
which
is
great,
but
that
doesn't
really
do
anything
right.
That's
not
it's
kind
of
like
inclusion,
theater
right.
It's
like,
we
really
hope
people
feel
included
and
we
are
inclusive,
but
it
actually
doesn't
do
anything,
and
one
thing
that
we've
done
at
the
central
level
is
try
to
do
our
best
to
be
thoughtful
about
having
a
a
group
where
the
coc
complaints
go.
That
can
be
thoughtful
and
inclusive
in
their
response,
and
I
think
that
we
don't
ask
the
projects
to
do
that.
I
So
if
we're
saying
we
will
never
at
a
central
level,
ask
projects
to
ban
folks-
and
I
think
one
thing
I've
observed
there's
definitely
and
one
thing
I've
observed
is
that
when
someone
goes
in
and
does
horrible
things
in
a
project,
they
go
in
and
do
horrible
things
in
their
next
project,
and
and
so
maybe
the
ass
can
be
to
the
projects
to
put
together
those
committees.
Maybe
there
can
be
a
process
because
we
definitely
don't
want
to.
I
We
don't
want
to
run
around
with
a
ban
hammer
and
be
like
you
can't
ever
work
on
things
again.
If
we
there
it's
in
an
absolute
excellent
reason
and
we
don't
want
to
do
things
that
aren't
transparent
to
the
projects.
So
maybe
that's
the
conversation,
because
all
those
things
jordan
to
your
point
a
word
one
way
or
the
other
is
not
going
to
answer
all
those
questions.
I
think.
E
Yeah,
I
think
the
vagueness
helps
in
some
ways
and
hurts
in
other
ways
what
I
don't
want
us
to
get
into.
F
F
I
I
I
think
I've
voiced
this
in
the
past,
but
I
explicitly
don't
want
to
get
into
the
state
of
demanding
what
a
project
can
and
can't
do
when
it
comes
to
protecting
itself.
I
think
we
have
a
bar
that
projects
must
meet
and
then
they
can
exceed
that
if
they
want.
D
D
We
need
to
have
the
discussion
and
document
what
we
agree
so
that
it's
clear,
because
otherwise
there's
lots
of
opportunity
for
misunderstanding
or
arguments,
whereas
if
we've,
you
know,
if
we
get
together
and
we
can
get
agreement,
I
don't
think
there's
anybody
saying
we
shouldn't
do
x
or
we
shouldn't
do
y.
It's
just
that.
We
need
to
have
the
conversation
and
then
write
down
what
we've
what
we've
agreed
to
to
get
and
that
started
at
you
know
the
references
to
the
to
the
collaborative
summit.
D
D
A
We
have
a
working
session
next
week.
At
the
same
time
should
we
plan
to
kind
of
further
work
on
this
then
and-
and
I
feel
like
it
would
be
good
to
sort
of
separate
out
the
different
issues
and
concerns
and
things
that
we
need
to
move
forward
on,
and
then
you
know
for
me
not
having
enough
time
to
really
dig
into
each
of
them.
A
It's
been
made
it
challenging
for
me
to
feel
like
I'm
being
helpful
in
this
effort,
but
maybe
if
we
just
have
this
conversation
in
a
working
session,
we
can
really
try
to
just
hone
in
on
specific
things
and
move
them
forward
or
at
least
have
developed
plans
for
them,
and
then
maybe
robin
you
can
help
us
see
if
we
can
get.
You
know
somebody
in
for
the
two
weeks
from
now
to
to
have
a
conversation
in
the
cpc
regular
meeting,
and
then
you
know
we
can
really
start
to
land
things.
A
C
I
agree
just
a
note,
though:
our
event
is
code
of
conduct.
It
falls
under
the
linux
foundation
event
code
of
conduct,
which
is
a
different
process,
a
different
team.
We,
I
think
we
added
that
as
well
to
our
some
of
our
documentation
as
well.
That
was
that
good
point.
D
Okay,
the
the
only
thing
I'd
say
is,
I
think
I
think
last
working
session
was
intended
to
do
that.
So
I
just
want
to
make
sure
if
that's
going
to
be
the
topic
that
you
know
the
people
who
are
most
impressed
and
and
want
to
push
that
forward,
can
make
that
time
or
maybe
a
different
time
makes
more
sense.
A
Yeah
and
that's
what
I
was
trying
to
get
at.
Thank
you
for
being
clear
about
it,
michael,
like
the
folks
who
are
engaged
in
this
conversation
right
at
this
moment.
Do
you
have
time
next
week
at
this
time
slot
to
continue
this
conversation,
and
I
will
dedicate
some
time
to
to
come
into
that
meeting,
prepared
to
be
able
to
help
move
things
forward
as
well.
A
All
right
so
then,
we'll
plan
on
that
next
next
week,
we'll
talk
more
about
this
and
and
and
yeah
try
to
land.
Some
of
these
things
move
some
of
these
things
forward,
gets
clarity
and
and
have
a
at
least
the
path
forward
that
we
need
to
figure
out
all
right
cool.
I
will
move
on
then,
but
I
will
take
note
here
in
next
week's
working
session.
A
Continue
working
on
coc
moderation
and
all.
A
Cool
next
item
on
the
agenda
is
a
focus
on
security
at
openjs.
I
feel
like
I
keep
saying
this,
but
I'm
gonna
get
this
started
asap.
A
A
That
is
all
I
got
next
on.
The
list
is
license
check,
support
and
tooling.
I
don't
know
if
there's
any
update
here,
if
we're
really
expecting
any
update
in
the
near
future.
I
think
last
time
it
was
mentioned
that
it
might
take
a
month
or
so
to
have
the
team
make
progress.
C
A
I'll
just
mention
it
because
it's
I
feel
like
it's
in
a
similar
space,
but
the
dco
stuff
that
I
don't
even
know
if
we
were
allowed
to
talk
about
that.
Was
that
private?
I
don't
know
it
was
in
an
email
thread
that
we're
working
on.
A
So
I
don't
know
so
I'll
skip
it
cool,
moving
on
clarify
requirements
around
coc
violation.
Is
this
something
hang
on
I'm
looking
at
the
things
so
toby's
got
some
next
action
items.
A
But
I
do
feel
like
this
is
something
we
could
it's
a
part
of
the
other
conversation
we're
having
before
too
yeah.
C
C
A
A
So
I'll
jump
to
the
tech
strategy,
pull
request.
Number
four
michael
opened
about
four
weeks
ago.
This
has
a
couple
of
approvals,
but
I
don't.
I
know
you
know
robin.
You
had
mentioned
that
you
know
the
team
is
busy
until
may,
which
is
very
soon,
but
I
don't
think
that
should
necessarily
hold
us
up
right.
We
can
start
to
get
things
in
place
unless
there's
any
objections.
A
A
Yeah,
thank
you.
That's
a
better
cool
all
right,
so
that's
ready
to
merge
and
you
know
once
the
team
is
ready.
We
can
start
to
implement
that
and
you
know
tweak
it
as
we
see
fit.
A
And
then
I
think
also
you
know,
michael.
We
should
probably
socialize
that
in
the
node.js
space
and
and
let
them
know
that
that's
an
avenue
that
we
can
start
to
take
advantage
of
as
well.
D
A
Cool
great
and
then
we've
got
in
terms
of
official
agenda
items.
The
last
pull
request.
Oh
sorry
did
somebody
have
something
I
just.
A
No,
I
I
said
I'd
skip
that
just
real
quickly
to
get
through
the
yep.
Sorry,
no
problem,
so
this
one
here
is
the
details
of
yearly
awards
program.
Let
me
look
here.
A
We've
got
a
couple
of
reviews,
approvals
on
this
as
well,
so
it
seems
like
we
can
land
this
too,
which
makes
sense
since
we're
already.
You
know
in
process
on
that
yeah.
D
Cool,
I
think,
that's
good.
We
probably
need
an
update
to
reflect.
You
know.
I
think
I
think
the
only
thing
that
changed,
maybe
is
the
names,
but
if
there's
any
other,
like
eligibility
requirements
or
anything
like
that,
that
was
different
than
what's
in
there.
That
would,
you
know
appear
that
reflects
that
would
probably
be
good.
Okay,
but
yeah
I'm
happy
to
land
the
current
version,
at
least
if
everybody
else
is.
A
Yeah,
let's,
let's
do
that
and
you
know
maybe
I'll
ping
jory
just
to
double
check
it
to
see
if
anything's
changed.
A
Cool
all
right,
so
now,
let's
talk
about
the
travel
requests
where's
my
agenda.
Now
christian
wally,
dylan
emily,
who
are
these
people?
Do
we
really
I'm
just
kidding.
E
I
mean,
I
think
we
just
need
to
like
agree
to
approve
them.
There's
like
a
complicated
stack
of
pr's
at
the
moment,
because
one
of
them
creates
2022
and
the
others
are
on
top
of
it.
So
my
like
particularness
makes
me
want
to
get
all
of
those
cleaned
up
in
the
way
that
I
deem
proper.
So
if
they
can
be
approved,
I
can
take
care
of
landing
them
all
and
rebasing
them,
and
so
on,
but
they've
also
been
sitting
there
for
at
least
one
of
them
for
over
a
week.
E
D
D
With
jordan
volunteering
to
fix
out
figure
out
the
subtleties
that
that's
fantastic
is
just
like,
so
I
was
happy
to
just
go
through.
My
only
thought
when
looking
at
them
is,
we
might
want
to
leave
something
on
our
agenda
each
every
two
weeks
to
just
look
at
the
totals
so
far
and
compare
against
budget
other
than
that.
Not
not.
It
seems
just
the
same
as
what
we've
done
in
the
past
right.
C
And
for
folks
watching,
there
are
also
as
a
scholarship
fund
that
the
linux
foundation
and
openjs
foundation
set
budget
aside
for,
and
so
we
have
been
going
through
those
as
well
and
have
sent
responses
to
those
folks.
So.
K
Yeah
thanks
for
calling
that
out.
Emily
just
wanted
to
to
on
a
technical
note
that
I
think
dylan's.
G
And
my
requests
have
not
yet
had
the
requisite
amount
of
hours
that
they've
spent
in
the
repository
to
be
merged
in
yet,
okay.
E
Yeah,
I
mean
it's
fine
if
we
want
them
to
sit
that
long,
but
the
you
know
christians
is
the
one.
That's
sat
there
for
a
long
time,
but
either
way.
I
think
for
things
that
the
cpc
has
agreed
on,
like
I'm,
not
sure
if
the
like
in
a
meeting,
I'm
not
sure
if
the
72
hours
adds
a
lot
of
value.
At
that
point,.
A
Yeah,
I'm
going
to
add
the
fast
track
request
to
each
of
the
the
you
know,
remaining
ones
so
feel
free
folks
to
just
throw
a
thumb
on
those
and
then
jordan
can
just
go
through
them.
D
Yeah
I'll
throw
my
two
cents
that
the
72
hours
is
for
the
people
who
aren't
in
the
meetings
right
like
anyway.
I
I
think
the
fast
track's
the
right
way
to
go
here
is
like
say:
okay,
this
is
a
special
case.
Normally
you
know
I.
I
do
think
that
the
waiting
time
adds
some
value
by
giving
people
a
chance
to
notice
before
it's.
It
just
happens.
A
Yeah,
I
think
in
this
case
it's
not
a
big
deal,
but
I
agree
with
you
michael
cool,
so
I
put
the
fast
track
request.
I
guess
so
maybe
need
to
add
the
label
to,
I
think,
there's
a
label
for
all
these
fast
track,
yep.
A
Great,
I
don't
know
if
there's
anything
else,
to
talk
about
on
this
one
then,
and
if
not,
then
I
don't
know,
if
there's
anything
else,
to
talk
about.
E
A
A
Cool,
well,
that's
that's
kind
of
it
for
the
things
that
we
need
to
talk
about.
Is
there
anything
else
that
we
want
to
touch
on
or
or
talk
in
a
private
session
or
anything.
A
A
It
yeah
yeah
yeah,
and
I
I
agree
tierney
putting
up
with
some
of
the
link
checker
issues
is
something
that
I
think
is
still
link
checkers
good
thing,
so
we'll
work
through
those.
Thank
you
for
integrating
that
right
on
we'll
call
it
a
wrap.
Then
friends,
there,
no
objections
cool.
All
right,
cheers.
Everybody
thanks
for
everything,
appreciate
it.
Thanks,
bye,.