►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - 2020-07-14
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
All
right
looks
like
we're.
We're
now
live
streaming
on
youtube
great.
Thank
you.
Brian
welcome
everyone
to
another
episode
of
the
open,
js
foundation's
cross
project
council
meeting
today
is
the
14th
of
july.
A
Our
agenda
is
issue
589
reminder
to
folks
to
add
themselves
to
the
to
the
meeting
notes.
You
know,
make
sure
you're
counted
and,
of
course,
help
with
with
notetaking
is
always
appreciated
and
the
gift
givers
remember
that's.
When
gift
gimming
comes
around
so
do
do
we
have
anything
we
want
to
talk
about
before
we
get
into
the
agenda
any
announcements
or
whatnot.
B
Announcements
are
as
follows:
so
we
have
a
summit
retrospective
meeting
immediately
following
this
meeting.
So
if
you
are
interested
in
participating
in
in
that
we'd
love
to
get
your
feedback
on
collab
summit,
so
we
can
wrap
that
up
and
start
thinking
about
the
next
one.
B
We
also
have
a
standards
working
group
meeting
today
at
2
p.m.
Eastern.
I
believe
that
is
6
p.m,
utc.
So,
if
you
are
interested
in
in
participating
in
that
group,
you
are
very
welcome
and
not
this
week,
but
next
week
is
our
marketing
meeting
on
on
a
tuesday.
So
if
you're
interested
in
that,
as
always,
you
can
subscribe
to
our
public
calendar
and
get
those
notifications
straight
to
your
cal
and
that's
really
that's
pretty
much
it
for
right.
Now.
It's
just
kind
of
nice.
A
Great
a
couple
things
that
come
to
mind
for
me
is
that
I
have
my
the
open
office
hours
session
this
week
and
I
don't
have
anything
planned
so
we'll
just
kind
of
do
whatever,
but,
as
usual,
open
call
to
anyone
who
wants
to
come
and
share
about
the
work
they're
doing
how
other
folks
can
get
involved,
whether
it's
a
project
or
an
initiative
or
a
working
group,
or
what
have
you
I'm
happy
to
have
folks,
come
on
and
share
with
the
community?
A
How
other
folks
can
get
involved
in
the
work
that's
happening
and
then
also
is
there
a
call
for
ama
stuff
too
for
the
year?
Is
that
something
I'd
heard.
B
B
C
Great
yeah,
joe
quick
thing,
good,
quick
question:
the
open
office
hours
that's
on
thursday,
correct
if
I'm
not
mistaken,.
C
All
right,
I'll
I'll
I'll
try
to
come
there
and
talk
about
some
stuff
yeah.
A
C
A
Yep
cool
anything
else
from
the
board
or
a
foundation
or
anything
else
we
want
to
talk
about
before
we
get
into
the
agenda.
I
don't
think
there's
anything.
D
Okay,
so
anyway,
I
I
don't
remember
anything
that
the
I
guess
there
was
the
update
to
the
there.
I
believe
the
there's
been
the
update
on
the
website
to
the
oh.
What's
it
called
the
the
bylaws
okay,
so
there
were
some.
There
were
some
updates
made
to
the
bylaws.
In
terms
of
you
know,
membership
and
there
now
they
were.
The
vote
was
complete
they're
up
there
on
the
site.
D
If
you
want
to
go,
take
a
look
they're,
mostly
around
relaxing
some
of
the
rules
to
ensure
that,
like
we
continue
silver
level
membership
to
be
a
little
bit
more
flexible
on.
D
If
there
are
two
companies
related
companies
who
want
to
get
like
a
platinum
membership
or
something
like
that
and
representation
on
the
board
as
well.
A
Okay,
it
seems
to
me,
like
it,
wouldn't
be
bad
if
things
like
this
happen,
if
there
were
perhaps
an
issue
just
kind
of
summarizing,
what
had
happened
that
that
I
think,
might
be
helpful
for
cpc
folks
to
just
be
aware
of
any
changes
like
that.
A
Yeah,
I
think
that
would
be
when
things
are
happening
above
us
that
we're
not
aware
of,
and
if
it
you
know,
is
something
we
should
be
aware
of,
then
that
might
be
helpful.
D
A
Sure,
yeah
yeah
informational,
cool
all
right.
Well,
thank
you.
The
next
meeting
is
in
like
10
days
or
something
is
that
right.
A
Okay,
cool
and
and
hopefully
we'll
have
some
stuff
for
to
to
bring
to
the
board
around
the
the
board,
seats
and
elections
and
some
governance,
changes
or
returns.
D
A
Well,
we'll
look
at
that
today
in
the
agenda,
so
let's
get
into
that
all
right
cool,
so
the
first
actually,
the
first
hair
thing
here
on
the
agenda
is
board
seats,
definitions
and
process.
This
is
the
pr
587
that
I
opened
up
a
week
ago,
so
it
will
be
two
weeks
by
the
time
the
next
board
meeting
happens.
So
hopefully
we
can
kind
of
get
this
ship
shaped
by
then
and
have
it
presented
to
the
board
at
that
time.
A
A
We
had
some
definition
of
that
for
as
a
requirement
for
becoming
a
regular
member,
and
so
I
took
that
out
into
its
own
section
so
that
we
can
reference
it
for
other
things,
such
as
board
nominations.
A
So
that's
one
bit
of
work
that
I
did
to
the
governance
and
then
I
believe
the
rest
is
in
the
charter,
and
I
tried
to
keep
it
pretty
simple
here
in
terms
of
the
two
board
seats,
the
definition
and
eligibility
and
who
can
vote
so,
basically,
there's
and
and
the
terming
here.
A
What
I
call
them
is
perhaps
something
we
should
revisit
in
this
pr
or
or
at
a
future
date,
because
apparently
there
are
terms
used
in
the
bylaws
that
sort
of
conflict
with
what
I
have
here
and
also
like
one
of
them
is
called
an
an
at-large.
A
A
But
then
I
realized,
first
of
all,
I'm
mixing
up
two
things
that
I
should
keep
separate
focus
on
the
two
board
seats,
but
also
you
know
we
have
a
concept
of
at-large
projects
and
that's
a
little
confusing
and
then
brian
brought
up
that
the
second
seat.
The
community
seat
is
actually
called
that
large
seat
and
the
bylaws
anyway.
A
A
My
suggestion
is
that
we
land
on
what
we
think
makes
the
most
sense
here
in
this
pr
and
then
at
some
point
we
can
perhaps
push
changes
up
to
the
bylaws
as
necessary.
I
know
we
try
to
not
change
bylaws,
but
for
for,
I
think
some
of
those
terms
were
used
in
a
vacuum
when
we
were
spinning
up
the
foundation
and
we
may
want
to
revisit
them.
So
I
guess
I'll
just
say
you
know
for
folks
to
take
a
look
at
this
pr,
it's
straightforward.
A
If
there
you
have
any
comments,
please
put
them
in
the
pr
and
I'll
try
to
address
them.
I
did
also
you
may
see
some
changes.
I
just
tried
to
take
all
of
the
links
and
put
them
at
the
bottom
of
the
document,
because
that
was
how
it
started,
and
then
it
got
mixed
up
with
links
embedded
in,
and
I
just
tried
to
clean
that
all
up
in
this
pr
as
well.
So
please
take
a
look:
does
anybody
have
any
comments
or
questions
or
want
to
talk
about
this
at
all?
Yeah
go
ahead.
E
Just
a
quick
question-
and
this
is
partially
to
you,
joe
and
then
partially
to
robin
or
the
foundation
staff.
I
was
just
quickly
looking
on
the
openjs
foundation
website
for
the
most
recent
bylaws
to
just
reference,
the
stuff
that
you
were
talking
about.
I
noticed
that
the
link
to
the
bylaws
links
to
bylaws
from
last
march-
I
think
that's
the
original
bylaws.
E
I
was
curious
where
we
can
find
recent
a
recent
copy
of
the
bylaws.
A
Okay,
so
I'm
trying
to
get
that
link
for
folks,
because
I
see
it,
I
did
use
it
in
the
pr
here,
so
I
think
to
save
brian
his
voice.
Bylaws.Openjsf.Org.
That
looks
like
it
goes
to
the
most
recent
one.
Is
that
right?
It's.
G
F
G
F
I
may
have
not
have
updated
the
link
properly.
Okay,.
E
Bylaws.Openjsf.Org
goes
to
one
from
june
8th.
I
think,
there's
still
an
update
since
then,
but
it
was
on
the
about
page
or
the
governance
page,
so
yeah
brian.
I
can
send
you
the
link,
but
we
probably
want
to
just
update
that
that
hard
link
that
we
have.
A
E
D
A
A
To
be
to
so
definition
of
an
active
openjs
collaborator
to
be
considered
an
open,
active,
openjs
collaborator,
and
I
see
I
have
some
capitalization
I
should
fix
here.
A
One
of
the
following
is
required,
and
this
was
the
the
exact
terminology
from
the
previous
as
it
was
written
for
regular
members,
but
an
active
member
of
a
project
community
or
collaboration
speech,
space,
which
is
defined
by
as
having
recent
sustained
contributions
to
the
project
during
the
past
90
days
or
a
demonstrated
level
of
contribution
to
the
cpc's
work,
parentheses
meetings,
issues,
pull
requests,
which
I
should
take
out
that
parenthesis
because
right
below
it,
I
define
it
a
little
bit
better
as
an
observer
during
the
past
30
days.
A
So
that's
the
abstracted
out
definition,
I'm
looking
at
it
now
and
realizing.
I
could
even
clean
it
up
a
little
bit
better
as
it
still
is
sort
of
related
to
the
regular
membership
terminology,
and
then
the
two
seats
that
I
have
defined
here
are
the
cpc
director
and
I
try
to
break
out
eligibility
and
voting.
So
the
cpc
director
must
be
a
current
cpc,
member
and
and
and
and
perhaps
I
should
clarify
that
that's
voting
or
regular
and
then
cpc
director
voting,
cpc
members
voting
and
regular
will
vote
on
candidates.
A
This
is
a
change
previously.
It
had
to
be
a
voting
member
to
be
a
cpc
director,
but
I
think,
based
on
discussions
we've
had
in
the
meetings,
we
were
saying
that
that's
it
should
be
open
to
any
cpc
member.
A
So
that's
something
people
can
comment
on
if
they
have
opinions
there
and
then
the
second
one
I
termed
as
the
community
director
which
is
open
for
comment
as
well,
but
the
community
director
eligibility
must
be
an
active
openjs
collaborator
at
the
time
of
their
selection,
as
defined
in
the
cpc's
governance
document.
And
then
I
really
went
running
around
trying
to
think
of
the
the
best
way
to
have
voting
on
the
quote.
A
Unquote,
community
director,
I
wanted
it
to
be
more
open
and
to
have
more
people
involved,
but
I
I
had
trouble
figuring
out
how
that
would
work
best,
so
I
left
it
as
just
cpc
members
voting
in
regular
will
vote
on
this
candidate,
but
you
know
anyone
is
eligible
if
they're
an
active,
openjs
collaborator.
A
My
thinking
was
that
all
of
the
projects
essentially
have
representation
in
the
cpc,
because
I
was
trying
to
figure
out
how
to
have
projects
you
know
similar
to
how
projects
can
vote
on
their
representative.
Maybe
they
should
have
a
vote
in
in
this
community
director,
but
since
they
have
representation
in
the
cpc
I
figured
that
was
covered
and
I'm
not
sure
if
we
should
be
like
considering
opening
up
beyond
there.
So
that's
kind
of
how
I
have
it
defined.
Does
anybody
have
any
thoughts
or
comments
or
questions.
D
F
G
F
Oh,
I
was
gonna
say
to
answer
your
earlier
questions,
so
the
first
director
is
called
the
cpc
director.
That's
the
one,
that's
always
there,
the
second
one
that
unlocks
from
there
are
two
or
more
platinum
is
the
at-large
community
director
and
then
the
third
one
is
just
called
addition
and
those
are
in
sections
d,
e
and
f.
D
A
Yeah
one
suggestion
that
brian
had
I'll
just
say
really
quickly
and
I-
and
I
think
I
documented
it
here
in
the
pr-
is
to
perhaps
just
reference
them
as
like
the
first
seed,
second
seat
and
third
seat
and
say
you
know,
as
called
x,
y
or
z
and
the
and
the
bylaws.
I'm
trying
to
find
this
comment
here.
G
So
I
I
had
a
couple
questions.
One
of
them
was.
I
You
in
your
definition
of
what
an
active
collaborator
is,
it's
sort
of
it
feels
sort
of
vague
to
me
where,
like
it
could
easily
like,
like.
I
think
it
describes
everything,
but
it's
not
immediately
clear
like
like.
I
can
see
it
being
open
to
interpretation
that
maybe
some
things
are
not
included
so
like
the
first
thought
I
had
when
you
were
halfway
through.
The
definition
was
like
what
about
like
the
standards
working
group
or
other
working
groups
like
which
aren't
explicitly
called
out.
I
So
I'm
wondering
if
it's
worth
explicitly
just
calling
out
like
participation
in
any
chartered
or
unchartered
groups.
G
I
Cpc,
that's
that's.
I
And
then
my
other
question
was:
when
you
were
talking
about
how
projects
that
have
representation,
don't
like
you
basically
were
implying.
They
don't
necessarily
need
to
vote
on
the
at
large
community
director
because
they
have
their
own
representation.
I
I
Like
if
the
impact
and
growth
projects
have
their
own
representation,
then
they
don't
they
don't
they
have
they're
not
being
represented
by
this
director,
so
they
don't
need
a
vote
in
it.
The
people
that
the
director
is
representing
are
the
at
large
projects
which
so
so
it
seemed
it.
If
that's,
if
that
logic
follows
through,
then
it
seems
to
me
like
the
at-large
projects
are
the
only
ones
who
should
really
or
the
most
important
ones
to
have
a
vote
in
who
represents
them.
I
Possibly
it's
just
the
the
yeah,
I
mean
I'm,
it's
very
likely,
I'm
confused
by
the
terms
here
I
just
like
the
sense
I
got
was
that
you
were
saying
that
the
cpc
votes
for
it,
but
that
the
the
person
who
they're
voting
for
isn't
representing
the
cpc
they're
representing
people
who
don't
have
a
vote,
and
so
my
kind
of
immediate
reaction
to
that
was
like
assuming
that's
all
correct,
which
it
may
not
be
was.
It
seems,
like
the
people
who
are
being
represented,
are
the
ones
who
should
vote
for
their
representative.
A
Yeah,
so
here's
how
I
envision
it
in
terms
of
the
the
seats
I
think
of
like
the
cpc
director,
the
initial
one
and
I'm
kind
of
making
gestures
here,
but
like
a
circle
and
then
a
circle,
that's
larger
and
surrounds
that
circle
is
like
the
second
seat.
You
know
what
I'm
calling
the
community
director,
although
that
may
not
be
the
best
term
and
then
the
third
seat
like
what
would
be
attached
to
the
individual
membership,
isn't
even
a
larger
circle
around
all
of
it.
A
D
The
second,
the
second
sorry
go
ahead.
I
was
gonna,
say
the
second
one's
defined
in
the
cpc
governances,
as
decided
by
the
cpc.
So
I
don't
think
the
like,
representing
the
at
large,
is,
is
written
down
anywhere.
It's.
It
was
the
one
that
was
like
you
know,
dedicated
to
the
node
project
for
the
first
year
and
through
our
discussions
we
said
okay,
now
we're
not
going
to
do
that.
But
you
know
the
proposal
is
that
it
basically
be
anybody
from
any
of
the
projects
or
who
is
active
in
the
work.
I
I
D
Cpc,
the
second
one
is
not
somebody
who's
necessarily
on
the
cpc
they
could
be,
but
somebody
who's
from
any
one
of
the
active
projects.
And
I
guess
you
know
in
terms
of
the
act.
What
I
think
joe
was
trying
to
capture
in
the
act
of
collaborators
is
not
just
projects
but
like
active
in
cpc
work
or
act
so
active
in
the
larger
somewhere
yeah
yeah
place.
D
Right
so
so
the
best
proxy
we
kind
of
have
that
we've
already
worked
out
is
the
you
know,
the
the
projects
have
representation
in
the
cpc
and
therefore
that's
the
best
proxy.
We
have
in
terms
of
saying
okay,
to
elect
that
second
person,
who
comes
from
anywhere
we've
got
representation
in
the
cpc
in
theory,
from
everywhere,
right
and
and
some
proportion
that
we've
agreed
is
reasonable.
So
let's
use
that
and.
A
And
so
I'll
just
add
really
quickly
like
I'm
thinking
about
like
we
need
to
get
this
done
too
and
so
like.
This
can
be
up
for
debate
for
a
whole
another
year
to
figure
out
how
to
better
vote
and
and
perhaps
tweak
some
of
the
the
seats.
But
that
was
my
thinking
so
just
to
paraphrase.
I
To
make
sure
I'm
understanding
you're
saying
that
that
perhaps
idealistically
all
of
the
projects
could
vote
for
this
second
director,
but
given
the
practicality
of
that
at
the
moment,
because
since
they
can
just
join
the
cpc
having
the
cpc
vote
for
them
is
the
most
like
expedient.
Essentially,
essentially,
I'm
not
sure
about
the
logistics
of
implementing.
H
And
I
think
just
sort
of
an
I'm,
not
a
complete
governance
expert
but
having
your
voting
body
you're
still
actively
seeking
underrepresented
people
to
serve,
but
I
think
you
still
have
your
voting
core
so,
as
joe
said
yeah,
let's
keep
the
voting
core.
Let's
actively
seek
underrepresented
contributors
and
community
participants,
I'm
an
ex
you
know
and
move
forward
with
a
vote
right.
E
Yeah,
I
think,
there's
also
like-
and
we've
had
discussions
about
this
before
about,
like
the
difference
between
the
pool
of
candidates
that
the
person
comes
from
and
the
group
of
people
who
are
doing
the
voting-
and
I
this
is
kind
of
similar
to
what
was
being
mentioned
earlier,
but
just
like
a
little
bit
more
specific
and
that,
like
the
cpc,
is
a
place
where,
like
it's
open
to
anyone
to
come
and
participate
in
the
discussion
and
often
in
a
lot
of
these
cases-
and
this
is
actually
something
interesting
with
like
the
board
and
some
of
the
changes
that
were
done
recently
around
multiple
companies.
E
The
multiple
companies
share
a
vote,
but
having
an
extra
person
in
the
room
is
considered
important.
So
I
think
to
me,
what's
important
here:
is
less
who's
doing
the
voting
to
pick
the
candidate
and
more?
What
is
the
pool
that
the
candidate
is
coming
from,
especially
because
the
discussions
can
happen
openly?
The
discussions
about
the
candidates
can
happen
openly.
There
are
many
representatives
who
people
can
talk
to
and
if
projects
want
to
be
represented
and
want
to
vote,
they
can
send
representation.
E
I
would
say
the
the
only
thing
that
we
haven't
done
that
might
be
worth
digging
into,
but
yeah
up
in
the
air
is
there.
There
is
a
little
bit
of
a
like.
I
guess,
from
the
voting
members.
There
is
not
like
an
overabundance
from
any
particular
project,
but
there
are
on
the
regular
members.
So
I
feel
by
like
keeping
it
to
the
voting
members.
E
We
do
ensure
that
there's
not
like
an
over-representation
of
votes
happening
from
any
one
project,
but
that
does
kind
of
undermine
a
little
bit
that
that
idea
that,
like
anyone,
can
come
and
participate
in
the
vote.
So
maybe
there's
a
little
bit
of
wiggle
room
to
be
played
with
there.
But
you
know
the
at-large
projects
do
elect
representatives
and
those
people
are
able
to
vote,
and
so
to
me,
you
know
like
it
doesn't
seem
as
like,
unfair
or
misrepresented
like
the
group
who's
here
is
the
group
who's
engaged
in
participating.
D
But
were
you
suggesting
like
what's
suggested
here?
I
just
want
to
clarify
so
that
we
bring
out
the
discussion
if
necessary
is
like
what
this
states
is,
that
it's
going
to
be
all
of
the
cpc
members
voting
and
regular
members.
I
I
may
have
heard
you
suggest
that
that
should
just
be
the
voting
members.
B
E
Part
of
the
purpose
of
having
those
voting
members
originally
was
to
make
sure
that
the
distribution
for
decision
making
was
like
fair
and
elected.
So
I
am
slightly
concerned
if
the
regular
members
are
voting
here,
that
we
could
be
overly
representing
into
specific
individual
projects
who
have
more
representation.
But
the
flip
side
is
you
know.
It
then
means
that,
like
all
the
at-large
projects
are
limited
to
kind
of
like
their
two
representatives,
so
there's
a
give
and
a
take
here.
E
One
thing
that
we
may
want
to
allow
here,
which
could
be
kind
of
splitting
the
difference,
would
be
like
allowing
one
vote
per
project
or
something
like
that
and
but
then
like.
I
think
that
does
start
becoming
a
slippery
slope
of
like
okay.
A
E
E
E
Maybe
we
should
have
a
place
where,
like
project
can
say,
hey
you
know
like
this
is
the
candidate
that
we
back
or
some
sort
of
way
of
them,
giving
that
feedback
to
the
voting
members,
because
if
the
voting
members
are
truly
representing
either
their
projects
or,
alternatively,
our
whole
foundation,
we
do
actually
need
some
sort
of
capacity
for
feedback
so
that
they're
representing
the
foundation
and
not
just
their
their
personal
feelings.
Yeah.
A
All
good
points
mike.
J
F
A
H
A
E
I
think
moving
forward
with
just
the
voting
members
and
encouraging
those
voting
members
to
make
sure
that
they're,
following
up
with
their
constituents,
is
like
a
good
first
step
and
then
we
can
maybe
do
a
survey
to
people
afterwards
to
find
out.
Like
did
you
actually
know
about
this?
Are
you
happy
with
the
results
of
the
election,
and
then
we
can
just
you
know
iterate
if
there's
concerns,
but
I
don't
think
that
we
should
have
the
regular
members
voting,
and
I
say
that
as
a
regular
member
who's
giving
up
my
vote.
D
Yeah
that
that
makes
sense
to
me
from
the
like.
We
should
have
with
the
explanation
that
says
it's
the
voting
members,
because
that's
how
we
ensure
a
reasonable
representation
like
and
then
then
that
could
be
discussed
if,
like
people
say
well,
no,
the
people,
you
know
the.
If
some
projects
has
10
regular
members
who
are
active,
maybe
they
should
have
more
of
a
say
right,
like
we'd.
Have
that
discussion
but
like
having
it
having
explained
is
like
here's
the
rush
now
for
why
it
is
the
way
it
is.
I
think
it
helps.
A
Yeah
I
took
I've
taken
a
note
on
on
that
I'll
update
the
pr,
maybe
add
a
little
bit
more
language
encourage
voting
members
to
reach
out
to
their
the
communities.
They
represent
the
projects
they
represent
and
such
so.
I
will
try
to
update
that
as
soon
as
possible.
I'll
ask
for
re-review
from
folks
who
have
commented
and-
and
I
encourage
every
everyone
else
to
take
a
look
at
it
as
well
and
we'll
try
to
land
something,
but
I
think
it
it.
It
does
make
sense
to
continue
this
conversation
beyond
this
election.
D
I
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
lj
was
like
just
in
in
the
idea
of
trying
to
facilitate
us
coming
to
a
close
in
terms
of
the
the
who
who's
eligible
for
the
second
director.
Do
you
have
any
questions?
No.
I
I
A
Excellent,
all
right,
so
I've
got
some
updates
there
and
and
we'll
like,
I
said,
ping
folks,
but
I
encourage
everyone
to
take
a
look
miles.
What
do
you
got.
E
Yeah,
so
just
the
last
thing,
michael
to
to
the
statement
that
you
were
saying
about
if
a
project
has
a
lot
of
representation
in
the
regular
members,
that's
a
great
reason
why
a
project
should
look
at
becoming
an
impact
project
and
impact
projects
get
two
votes.
So
I
think,
like
we
already
have
the
infrastructure
in
place,
and
I
think
the
more
that
I
think
about
it
like.
That
is
why
we
built
all
this
infrastructure
for
voting
members
and
if
we.
E
Don't
have
proper
representation
that
is
likely
where
it
should
be
worked
on
not
in
like
kind
of
secondary.
I
I.
D
A
Yeah
and
I'm
glad
we've
had
this
conversation
because
I
think
we've
had
a
couple
of
times
this
come
up
like.
Why
do
we
have
voting
members
and
I
was
like
yeah?
You
know
good
point.
We
got
you
know
everybody's
cool
here,
but
I
think
that
this
makes
sense
like
fair
and
balanced
representation.
What's
an
impact
project
you
know
and
all
those
kinds
of
things.
So,
interestingly,
I
didn't
ask
this
in
the
beginning
and
I'm
gonna
consider
that
we're
wrapped
up
on
on
that
board
seat
topic.
A
But
if
anybody
has
anything
else
just
interrupt
me,
I
didn't
ask
whether
we
should
set
aside
time
for
private
and
I
think
that
we
should.
We
have
a
couple
of
things
happening
and-
and
we
are
42
minutes
past
the
hour,
so
I
I
will
try
to
jump
further
into
the
agenda,
but
should
we
set
aside
15
minutes
or
10
minutes,
I
feel
like
15
would
be
good,
but
what
do
people's
people
have
any
thoughts
about
that.
K
Okay,
all
right,
let's
do
that.
We
have
a
tiny
bit
of
thing
to
say
so,
just.
A
Okay,
so
cool
next
on
the
agenda
is
updating
the
cla
to
the
apache
style,
icla
and
ccla.
Do
we
have
anything
on
this?
Oh,
not
brian,
right.
F
Can
you
hear
me
now?
Yes,
all
right,
cool
yeah,
so
I
don't
think
there's
any
change
from
last
week.
You
know
I
I
thought
the
the
issue
that
phoebe
had
filed
and
this
is
all
feedback
that
we'll
bring
back
to
the
board,
but
if
anybody
does
have
any
further
thought
on
this
or
if
anybody
would
like
to
talk
through
it,
please
let
me
know.
H
B
No,
I
I
just
sent
an
email
out
about
the
security
disclosures.
I
missed
the
request
for
messaging
about
the
other.
I
think
it
was
mentioned
in
the
newsletter,
but
I
didn't
send
a
specific
well,
not
I
think
I
know
it
was.
It
was
added
in
the
newsletter,
but
I
didn't
send
a
request
out
to
maintainers
for
feedback
on
that
particular
thing.
I
can
do
that,
though,
if
that
is
requested.
A
The
afterwards
cool
I
want
to
jump
to
the
next
agenda
item
if,
if
I
may,
which
is
the
membership
program,
individual
membership,
sarah
do
you
wanna
jump
in
here
and
let
us
know
where
you're
at
and
how
we
can
help
continue
moving
this
forward.
L
Yeah,
so
I
think
the
big
open
questions
so
so
my
first
question
I
I
had
about
moving
this
on
to
phase
one
I
put
in
slack.
Basically
what
the
process
was
for
moving
things
moving
the
file,
so
we
don't
lose
the
outstanding
questions.
L
So
if
anyone
has
a
chance
to
answer
that
in
slack,
that
would
be
great.
I
think
the
big
open
questions
I'm
seeing
is
the
big
one
is
around
the
newsletter,
whether
we're
considering
closing
that
up
or
if
we
would
be
open
to
open
to
offering
a
new
newsletter.
I
think
the
big
question
in
my
mind
when
it
comes
to
some
of
these
things,
is
what
the
bandwidth
is
of
the
foundation
in
general.
You
know:
is
there
someone
that
is
interested
in
starting
a
new
newsletter?
That
could
do
something?
That's
quarterly.
L
So
I
think
that's
an
open
question.
An
additional
open
question
is
around.
If
there
are
any
things
that
we
can
offer
the
supporters,
I'm
I
changed
the
terminology
to
supporters
as
it
seemed
like
we
had
a
consensus
on
that.
Is
there
anything
that
we
can
offer
the
supporters
that
would
give
them
a
direct
line
to
the
project
maintainers
in
general
to
see
you
know
for
questions
and
and
giving
them
kind
of
a
happy
path
to
contribution?
L
And
then
let
me
see
if
there,
I
believe,
there's
one
more
open
question.
I
made
a
list,
oh
additionally,
the
income
from
the
supporter
program.
So
there
was
some
sentiment
around.
Maybe
this
should
this
income
should
specifically
go
towards
benefits
for
the
supporters.
L
I
think
that,
given
the
amount,
we're
suggesting
is
25
and
we
don't
really
know
what
that
income
is
going
to
look
like,
I
think,
probably
if
we
were
to
do
something
like
that,
you
know
holding
off
to
committing
what
that
would
afford
the
supporters
until
after
we
know
more
would
probably
be
a
good
idea,
but
those
are
the
existing
open
questions.
I
think
that
we're
looking
for
a
thought
on.
A
Okay,
great
and-
and
maybe
you
know,
some
folks
can
help
kind
of
through
the
staging
process.
In
terms
of
you
know
how
how
we
move
these
things
along
and
those
outstanding
questions
can
be
raised
in
moving
it
to
stage
one
and-
and
we
can
kind
of
you
know-
work
through
that
in
an
open
pr.
A
Yeah,
so
I
think
one
of
your
questions,
sarah,
is
making
sure
those
questions
don't
get
lost
in
in
the
current
proposal
stage,
but
I
think
we
can
just
pull
them
out
and
and
put
them
in
the
documents
as
great
yeah.
A
A
So
all
right,
I
mean
we're
kind
of
at
time
already.
Let
me
look
in
the
agenda,
see
if
there's
anything
quickly
that
we
should
touch
on.
Does
anybody
have
anything
that
they
want
to
just
quickly,
update
or
or
share
before
we
jump
into
private
session?
You
know
security
reporting
proposal.
D
My
only
question
will
be
the
responsible
security
closures.
Thank
you,
jory
for
sending
out
that
email.
How
long
should
we
wait
before
we
consider
we've
gotten
the
input
we're
going
to
get.
B
I
would
give
it
to
end
of
this
week
and-
and
you
know,
because
any
anybody
who
you
know
got
that
email
is
certainly
someone
we
would
want
to
have
input
on
it
and
giving
them
just
over
a
week
week
and
a
half
is,
is
pretty
pretty
generous,
especially
considering
it's.
It's
been
open
a
while
and
the
feedback
so
far
is
really.
D
Okay,
so
we'll
wait
till
the
end
of
the
week
and
that
next
week
we
can
go
move
it
to
the
next
stage.
If
somebody
hasn't
raised
objections
thanks
great.
A
And
then
I'll
just
add
to
I,
I
see
that
you
know
miles
has
commented
on
the
collaboration
network
stuff.
So
it
seems
like
that
is
in
a
position
to
kind
of
continue
moving
forward
as
well.
D
A
Yeah,
like
miles
said,
you
know,
let's,
let's
we'll
kick
it
off
and
augment
process
if
need
be
later,
yep.
A
Cool
all
right.
Well,
you
know
I
encourage
folks
to
look
at
the
agenda
and
comment
on
any
of
the
other
issues
that
we
haven't
touched
on
or
pull
requests,
but
as
it
is,
we
will
jump
into
the
private
session.
I
will
stop
the
live
stream
and
you
know
foundation,
staff
and
and
cpc
members
hang
on
and
everybody
else
thank
you
and
we'll
move
along
thanks.