►
From YouTube: CPC Meeting - 2019-08-06
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
A
Ok
great,
we
have
light
attendance
today,
but
we'll
go
through
our
agenda,
see
what
we
can
get
done
and
sort
of
progress
we
can
make
so
the
agenda
issue.
The
meeting
issue
is
a
sheet
number
281
cross
project
council.
Repo
we've
got
a
few
items
on
the
agenda.
I
also
added
a
comment
for
some
other
things
to
you
that
we
can
look
at
or
at
least
draw
attention
to
I'm
going
to
jump
to
the
third
item,
which
is
issue
number
207.
A
A
We've
got
a
couple
of
reviewers
here,
I've
added
some
suggestions
for
examples
as
to
where
I
think
Jori
pulled
some
of
this
some
of
these
details
into
templates,
but
otherwise
it
looks
good
to
me.
This
surety,
you
want
to
add
any
more
context
and
doesn't
want
to
have
anything
they
want
to
add
to
this.
A.
B
Quick
recap-
and
this
is
an
issue
that
is
blocking
the
onboarding
process,
because
we
have
stated
that
we
want
all
of
our
projects
to
have
a
charter
document
and,
and
we
don't
really
have
a
template
from
which
all
of
those
projects
can
kind
of
adapt
and
work
from.
So
what
I
did
was
to
take
the
node
TSC
charter,
as
well
as
the
a
kubernetes
charter
document
that
they
use
for
triggering
various
sub
working
groups
and
try
and
distill
out
sort
of
the
basics
that
we?
B
What
we
want
to
get
out
of
this
document
as
the
the
I'll
be
Li
five
issue
raises,
the
question
is
like
what
does
it
Charter
do
and
the
goal
is
to
provide
a
pretty
crisp
and
concise
statement
about
a
project's
scope
and
its
relationship
with
the
the
umbrella
organization.
So
in
this
case
the
open
Jas
foundation.
B
How
do
these
two
groups
intersect
and
where
can
one
go
to
find
more
information
about,
say
you
know
the
business
case
use
case
for
the
project
or
you
know
where
they
might
go
to
find
more
information
about
how
it's
potentially
Cardinals
its
I
want
to
encourage
projects
not
to
think
of
it
as
something
that
they
should
be
using
to
document
every
detail
about
how
they
govern
themselves
that
that
information
is
certainly
better
suited
for
a
governance
document
in
your
own
repository,
because
you
can
change
it
pretty
easily.
The
scope
document
should
be
more
about.
B
You
know:
here's
the
introduction
to
our
project
and
the
problems
that
it
solves
and
here's
how
it
intersects
or
relates
to
the
open
J's
foundation.
So
I
had
a
couple
of
questions
on
this
particular
PR.
One
was
whether,
frankly,
this
should
be
proceeding
through
the
proposal
process
or
or
not.
I
actually
was
like
well.
B
This
is
this:
is
a
template,
we're
not
proposing
that
we
use
a
charter,
because
we've
already
decided
that
we
need
to
use
a
charter
so
anyway,
however,
we
think
that
that
should
advance
from
a
process
perspective,
I'm
super
down
for
and
the
other
piece
of
kind
of
high
level
feedback.
That
I
really
feel
is
unwarranted.
It's
how
onerous
does
this
document
feel
to
projects
to
need
to
to
fill
it
out?
So
that
should
be
the
relatively
quick
recap
of
of
this.
C
B
C
B
So
Brian
Warner
and
Mike
Dolan
kind
of
delegated
this
template
creation
to
yours
truly
because
Brian's
gone
on
vacation
and
Mike
is
under
water.
They
they
don't
have
an
LF
specific
templates
and
this
again
is
adopted
from
what
is
on
be
been
approved
for
as
a
charter
template
from
other
places.
So
there's
no
real
and
yeah.
If
there's
an
as
near
as
I
can
tell
there's
no
no
requirement
for
legal
review
at
this
point.
Okay,.
C
C
We
should
have
Andy
with
you
what
we
have
before
it
lands,
Andy
being
like
the
counsel
that
we
have
for
the
foundation
right
now,
I,
don't
think
we
need
legal
to
write
to
draft
the
whole
thing,
but,
like
any
like
any
time,
we
do
charter
changes
that
are
non-trivial
and
usually
reviews
them
anyways,
so
I
think
it
would
not
I.
Think
would
be
prudent
to
do
that.
Unless
you
know
lots
of
people
disagree
with
that
and
think
it's
unnecessary
process,
I.
C
So
I
guess
to
be
a
little
clearer
for
any
of
the
charters
to
land.
Officially
will
require
legal
review
so
having
Andy
do
a
quick
once-over
which
may
not
even
be
a
lot
of
time
as
a
precedent,
and
then
we
can
show
the
diffs
from
an
already
reviewed
document.
I
think
will
make
future
legal
review
far
simpler.
D
B
C
Even
think
it
needs
to
necessarily
go
to
the
board
for
approval
I.
It
was
more
just
like
I
think
we
should
all
reach
consensus
on
what
we
want
and
just
get
a
rubber-stamp
from
legal,
that
this
is
a
good
template
to
start
from
and
I
think
that
will
just
simplify
the
process
in
the
future.
If
we
do
that
extra
step.
A
All
right,
I'm,
just
missing
quick
notes,
great
all
right,
excellent,
so
thanks
miles
for
bringing
that
up,
I
agree
that
I
think
that
makes
sense
that
legal
review
and
I
would
encourage
other
folks
to
take
a
look
at
this
regardless.
As
Jory
said,
it's
pulled
from
a
couple
of
already
existing
charters,
so
it
should
pass
mustard.
I.
Think
it's
safe
for
us
all
to
kind
of
take
a
peek
at
it
and
trying
it
on.
A
A
C
A
C
Things
are
a
little
different
now
because
at
least
when
we
were
the
node
foundation,
it
wasn't
possible
to
approve
charter
changes
or
make
any
decisions
by
email,
but
there
were
changes
to
the
bylaws
of
the
foundation
down
through
allowed
decision-making
via
email.
So
we
just
need
to
come
up
with
kind
of
like
a
board
decorum
for
how
we
reach
consensus
for
these
kinds
of
things,
but
I
have
sense
an
FYI-
and
this
is
you
know,
basically
an
errata
change,
so
it
shouldn't
require
an
extensive
period
of
time
right.
A
Great
alright,
so
not
too
much
to
discuss
here.
Anybody
has
anything
speak
up
now
or
we'll
move
along.
A
We
skipped
over
number
three,
as
that
was
a
porter
number
one
there.
So
we
can
jump
into
the
post.
Bootstrap
work,
which
is
the
agenda,
is
on
issue
number
115,
but
the
project
is
project
number
three,
which
I
will
drop
them
the
chat
here
we
can
quickly
go
through
where
we
are
here
with
the
project
board.
A
A
Think
that
it's
for
request,
number
278
I,
don't
believe
that
Jonah
was
able
to
make
the
meeting
today,
but
basically,
we've
landed.
The
travel
fund
proposal
is
a
zero
looking
to
stage
one
there's
a
issue
open
and
the
DOJ's
admin.
Li
Po
and
you
know,
went
out
to
the
project's
list.
Miles
also
comments
here
that
that
were
already
really
kind
of
discussing
Stage
two
concerns-
and
we
already
I
believe,
have
some
approvals
with
some
comments
here
for
Stage
one
Tiaras
not
on
the
call.
C
A
Great
Thank
You
miles
next
in
the
post,
bootstrap
housekeeping
project
board
here
in
progress.
We
have
add
entry
point
for
projects
wanting
to
join
on
readme
and
review
project
progression.
I
think
correct
me.
If
I'm
wrong,
we
expect
that
we'll
move
forward
on
this
once
we
have
more
progress
on
the
project
onboarding,
which
may
be
a
good
segue
to
I,
don't
know
if
we
want
to
jump
around
between
project
boards,
but
we
could.
We
could
discuss
project
onboarding
for
field
would
like
and.
B
So
this
particular
issue
in
hail
I
can
action
item
that
I
am
volunteered
to
take
to
update
this.
This
PR,
with
with
the
language
we
discussed
and
then
ran
into
a
issue
being
able
to
add
an
update
out
of
commit
to
miles
as
PR,
because
there's
something
weird
with
them
with
github,
not
allowing
me
to
do
that,
and
so
that's
that's
why
this
particular
issue
isn't
closed.
So
this
is
on
one
he.
B
My
apologies,
I
still,
don't
know
why
that
doesn't
work,
but
maybe
I'll,
just
I'll
just
provide
the
pros
two
miles
and
he
can
have
it
which
issue
is
this
again.
This
is
about
just
providing
I,
can't
really
issue
number,
but
the
idea
was
that
on
the
readme
of
the
CPC,
we
should
have
some
language
that
just
says.
You
know
if
you're
interested
in
in
so
many
words
if
you're
interested
new
projects
interested
in
joining
should
take
a
look
at
the
following
documentation
and
just
yeah.
So.
C
I
and
I
guess
this
is
worth
mentioning:
I
landed
the
PRS
that
we
had
because
there's
no
blocking
anything
on
them
for
the
more
than
project
proposals
for
new
projects.
So
there
is
now
that
reference
has
been
updated
in
the
project
progression
markdown.
So
you
can
just
open
a
new
PR
on
the
repo
okay.
A
So
I
will
continue
going
through
the
post
bootstrap
housekeeping
board
the
next
one
and
the
last
one
and
in
progress
column
here
is
document.
Slash,
define
initial
process
for
handling
reports
to
report
at
open,
JSF
I'm
opening
this
up,
I
believe
yeah.
So
we
Manila
had
worked
on
this
and
we
have
a
pull
request
open.
F
So
the
pull
request
seems
to
have.
There
were
a
couple
comments
earlier
on
which
were
addressed
and
and
then
we
have
an
approval
from
Joe
I
believe
I
believe
I
wasn't
about
to
make
any
further
edits
to
this
I
believe
the
comments
were
already
addressed,
but
I
think
the
person
who
wanted
who
made
those
comments
is
on
the
meeting.
So
we
could
get.
F
A
I
just
want
to
remind
everyone
that
we
are
merging
this
document
into
a
proposal
that
is
at
stage
one.
So
you
know,
even
if
we
merge
it
in,
we
can
still
iterate
on
what
this
proposal
overall.
But
the
COC
proposal
should
look
like
moving
toward.
G
A
That
yeah,
that
being
said,
I
encourage
folks
to
take
a
look
at
this,
and
you
know
help
us
move
it
along
all
right
great.
If
we
don't
have
anything
else
to
add
on
that,
I
will
move
forward
to
the
to
do
column
here.
The
first
item
is
an
issue
from
miles,
and
this
is
from
20
days
ago
improve
governance
for
regular
members.
There
are
miles
points
out
a
couple
of
good
things
that
we
should
clarify
on
and
Michael
Dawson
adds
a
little
bit
as
well.
A
A
A
A
B
A
F
A
And
I
agree
too,
so,
hopefully,
nobody
objects,
I've,
already
moved
it
over
and
removed
it
from
this
project
board.
If
there
are
any
other
issues
as
we
go
through
this
that
are
on
both
boards,
we
should
address
those
as
well.
So
the
great
folks,
the
next
item
in
the
to
do
column
is
review
foundation
infrastructure
and
we
think
how
we
manage
it.
I
think
we
keep
hunting
this
one,
so
we
I
think
it's
kind
of
stabilized
on
some
other
things.
A
A
A
I
spoke
with
Michael
Dawson
after
the
last
meeting.
We
have
some
of
this
already
documented
in
the
node
org
that
we
could
we
could
move
over
and
I
could
pull
request
some
of
these
documents
in
and
we
can
iterate
on
them
from
there.
So
this
is
a
Deadman
policy.
Docs
is
a
list
here
of
four
items
that
could
be
more
but,
for
example,
transferring
a
Rico
into
a
sales
org
github
or
management
policy
member
expectations,
which
I
believe
it's
already
finished
and
working
group
requirements.
A
A
No
great
moving
on
to
the
waiting
and
waiting
on
the
board
and
foundation
items.
I'm,
not
sure
you
can
really
get
into
these
they're
the
the
ones
that
we
touch
on
each
meeting.
The
project
directed
funding
is
issued
number
90,
which
I
believe
there's
discussion
at
the
board
level,
only
to
open
up
the
four
cheeks
of
having
a
comment.
Last
time,
Brian
said
that
it
was
under
active
discussion
at
the
board
level,
so
business
probably
continues
to
be
on
hold
at
the
moment.
So
anybody
have
anything
to
add
to
that.
One.
A
B
C
So
if
we
don't
have
an
explicit
ask
to
the
board
about
what
we'd
like
to
do
like,
we
can
wait
for
some
direction,
I
think
with
the
project
directed
funding,
for
example,
maybe
like
rules
around
using
these
services,
but
like
what
I'm
not
seeing
necessarily-
and
you
can
tell
me
if
I'm
wrong
is
like
the
next
boarding
board
meeting-
is
in
two
weeks
and
what
could
be
an
action
item
for
us
up
until
then
as
well?
Dawson
and
Chris
will
have
to
present
this
to
the
board.
C
B
And
I'll
be
candid
in
that
I
have
during
the
my
brief
moment
on
the
board.
I
did
try
and
make
it
very
clear
with
the
with
the
problem
spaces,
and
this
issue
is
just
to
help
make
sure
that
at
least
from
a
community
standpoint
we
don't
lose
it.
We
as
an
organization
either
as
note
or
Jays
foundation
separately
and
now
is
open,
J's
Foundation
combined
and
have
not
really
come
forward
with
a
clear
statement
on
the
guidelines
and
policies
for
projects
that
want
to
use
tools
like
open,
collective
or
patreon
or
those
sorts
of
things.
A
B
A
C
B
Yeah
I
mean
just
as
long
as
like
I'd
I
tried
very
hard
to
provide
all
of
our
projects
with
the
answers
and
support,
and
you
know
clarity
that
they
need
to
know
that
they're
they're
doing
things
you
know
above
board
and
everything
and
on
this
particular
issue.
I,
have
just
never
felt
that
that
I'm
getting
that
kind
of
structure.
That
is
that
is
needed
from
the
board
on
this
particular
matter
and
I,
feel
like
a
lot
of
projects
would
probably
say
the
same,
but
that's
that's.
That's
it.
Vint
ended.
B
B
B
And
yeah
and
I
think
those
those
are
two
separate
things
that
do
get
conflated
and-
and
so
one
thing
that
we
need
is
to
make
it
very
clear
to
the
companies
that
are
interested
in
supporting
our
work.
That,
for
example,
if
they
want
to
donate
a
chunk
of
money
so
that
mocha
or
node-red
or
appium
or
any
of
our
projects,
could
have
an
event
or
you
know,
have
swag
or
do
whatever
it
is
that
they
they
want
to
do
that.
The
foundation
is
a
home
for
them
to
do
that,
they
can
make
that
donation.
B
B
If
a
project
wants
to
do
additional
fundraising
and
maybe
for
you
know
a
hiring,
a
developer
to
build
a
website
or
something
of
that
sort
and
they're
doing
that
fundraising
on
a
platform
like
open,
collective
well,
there
needs
to
be
a
pretty
clear
line
right
because
that's
money
that
the
foundation
is
not
managing
so
there's
we
have
right
now
sort
of
stopgap,
disclaimer,
but
it'd
be
great
to
be
able
to
provide
to
a
project
that
says
we
want
to
do
that.
Say:
okay,
fantastic!
B
If
you're
gonna
do
that
here
are
some
things
you
need
to
keep
in
mind.
Here
are
some
best
practices
to
make
sure
that
you
don't
end
up
having
potential
risks
or
liabilities
fall
on
your
individual
plates,
and
that
you
are,
you
know,
practicing
good
accounting,
hygiene
and
you're,
not
accidentally
putting
people
at
risk
and
that
kind
of
thing.
So
you
know
those
are
those
are
totally
different
audiences
to
address,
but
they
kind
of
get
completed
under
one
problem
space,
because
companies
set
up
could
donate
money
to
the
foundation
to
sponsor
a
project.
B
C
Just
a
quick
question
before
I
shoot
this
email
off
to
make
sure
that
we're
all
on
the
same
page.
So
the
issue
ninety
seems
to
be
focused
on
directed
funds
from
foundation,
managed
donations,
but
the
clarity
that
we'd,
like
is
those
clarity
on
how
or
if
it
will
be
possible
to
do
directed
funds
from
Foundation
manage
donations.
That's
the
first
bucket
and
then
the
second
is
policy
and
direction
around
raising
funds
from
third-party
tools
such
as
open
collective
tide,
lifts
or
github.
B
We
need
yes,
I
think
we
need
clarity
on
both
of
those
because
I
you
know
I'm
putting
myself
in
the
shoes
of
any
any
particular
project.
You
know
maintainer,
who
might
say,
meet
somebody
from
a
company
that
wants
to
support
my
work.
You
know
I
should
be
able
to
tell
that
that
person
oh
well,
you
have
two
options.
You
can
donate
a
chunk
of
money
to
the
foundation
and
they
can
support
us
this
way
or
you
could
you
know
here:
here's
the
other.
B
C
Thank
you
mile,
I,
don't
think
Jory
that
we
need
to
put
anything
together,
but,
like
separately
from
this
I,
do
think
one
of
the
things
that
I've
seen
happen
at
the
board
in
the
past
is
things
being
brought
that
are
problems
not
necessarily
solutions,
and
it
not
being
clear
that
those
are
problems
being
brought
with
consensus.
So
I
think
in
this.
In
this
particular
case,
we've
managed
to
like
make
it
really
clear
about
the
solutions
that
we're
looking
for.
A
A
Alright,
great
so
I
think
in
terms
of
the
issue
number
124
update
and
move
the
JSF
CLA
bot.
Like
you
said,
we
should
figure
out
what
we
want
exactly
I
can
make
that
direct
request
with
them
as
well.
I,
don't
think
it's
nearly
as
pressing
as
the
project
directed
funding.
So
we
try
to
make
progress
on
that
one
as
well.
A
So,
moving
on
from
this
project
board,
unless
anyone
has
anything
else,
they
want
to
add
this
conversation
here
we
have
14
minutes
left.
Do
we
want
to
just
touch
on
project
onboarding
at
all,
I,
don't
think,
there's
been
too
much
progress
other
than
the
draft
charter
that
is
in
flight
and
I
know
Chris
isn't
here,
fortress
I
was.
B
Gonna
say
I
think
I
think
we,
with
with
the
two
projects
again
architect
and
and
mocha,
are
going
through
right
now,
helping
us
dog
food.
This
a
bit
then
I
think
we
certainly
have
enough
bandwidth
to
start
onboarding
other
existing
projects.
So
I'd
love
it.
If
another
project
or
two
like
a
message,
format
or
something
I
would
like
to
start
the
process,
we
can.
We
can
kind
of
start
moving
more
through
because
right
now
we
haven't
really
haven't
run
into
many
issues,
except
for
those
things
that
are
blocked
and
they
seem
very
procedural.
So.
G
A
If
no
one
has
any
objections
to
moving
on
to
those,
the
first
one
I'll
just
call
out
is
for
quest
to
76.
If
some
meeting
notes
that
I
added
my
as
approved,
we
can
get
another
approval
on
that.
We
can
merge
that
in
travel
fund
promotion
of
stage
one,
we
discussed
pole
quest
to
74
dock
at
governing
villains
for
first
term
voting
numbers
for
quest
to
74.
A
A
So
I
just
wanted
to
call
that
one
and
see
what
folks
attention
pull
request
to
71
and
process
for
handling
reports,
which
we
I
think
already
discussed
this
one
as
well,
so
part
of
the
stage,
one
through
COC
process
and
then
moving
on
to
the
couple
of
issues.
You
don't
have
the
agenda
label
on
them,
but
I
thought
it's
important.
This
call
them
out
for
people
to
get
some
eyes
on
issue
number
280
is
to
find
and
document
a
style
guide
for
the
Foundation's
name,
which
I
know
that's
a
conversation.
B
You
know
I
think
I
probably
do
somewhere
in
the
depths
of
my
inbox,
have
some
documentation
on
kind
of
what
was
what
was
intended
to
the
point
of
having
a
style
guide,
which
I
am
a
hearty
+14
I
think
there
was
some
conversation
that
Brian
Warner
and
myself,
and
probably
others
from
this
group
had
had
about
having
a
and
a
repository
that
would
be
a
home
for
style
documentation
for
all
of
our
projects
and
for
the
foundation.
So
we
can
kind
of
point
people
to
a
central
local
to
know.
B
You
know
if
I
want
to
use
a
project
mark
and
a
sticker
or
on
a
site
or
something
like
that.
Here's,
the
here's,
the
license,
information,
here's
the
high
quality
image.
You
know
here:
here's
the
here's:
how
to
refer
to
it
that
kind
of
stuff
so
and
I
think
Brian
actually
has
all
of
the
the
marks
and
stuff,
and
we
just
need
to
and
spend
some
time
fitting
that
together,
but
I
think
that
would
be
a
great
repo
for
our
for
us
to
have.
A
A
Great
and
similarly
issue
number
273
across
us
to
request
legal
advice,
your
projects
again
I,
think
you
know
we
should
probably
walk
through
Brian
so
get
that
documented
somewhere
as
well.
I,
don't
know
if
that
is,
there
might
even
be
something
we
want
to
put
to
the
project,
onboarding
I'm,
not
sure
about
that
project
board.
So
that's
all
that
I
had
here.
We
have
eight
minutes
left
Menil.
Do
you
want
to
talk
about
code,
learned
format
for
the
next
interactive.
F
The
idea
of
a
conan
learn
until
now
has
been
to
let
folks
get
a
taste
of
what
it
might
like
what
it
would
be
like
to
contribute
to
the
node.js
project.
So
it
involves
a
lot
of
upfront
work
from
core
maintainer
x'
to
curate
a
lot
of
issues
that
are
easy
enough
to
solve
without
prior
context
and
at
the
same
time
after
those
are
PR
din
after
a
whole
day
out
a
lot
of
intensive
work.
That's
more
work
for
people
to
review
and
merge.
F
It
doesn't
have
on
top
of
that
that
expected
outcomes,
a
very
small
port
proportion
of
people
who
participate
in
what
is
essentially
a
very
resource.
Intensive
activity
eventually
translate
into
regular
contributors
and
the
last
thing,
not
necessarily
a
weakness
of
code
and
learn,
but
more
around.
The
fact
that
we
have
the
projects
have
changed
over
time.
Now.
It's
too
focused
on
the
node.js
project
and
typically
it
takes
place
interactive,
which
is
now
also
not
just
know,
Jeff's
focus.
F
So
the
proposal
was
to
change
code
and
learn
into
something
that
encompasses
not
just
know
jazz,
but
also
other
projects
in
open,
Jeff's
Christian
in
the
issue
and
I'll
paste
that
over
here,
if
y'all
want
to
just
have
a
quick
look
at
it
before
we
dive
into
it
later
as
part
of
CPC
work.
But
the
initial
proposal
that
we
had
discussed
was
to
get
buy-in
like
to
change
up
the
format
and
reduce
the
upfront
work
that
it
takes
from
for
maintainer
to
prepare
those
issues.
F
And
one
of
the
suggestions
was
that
we
reach
out
to
teams
that
would
be
attending
interactive
and
we,
if
there
was
any
particular
project
in
the
open,
GS
portfolio
or
any
particular
feature
on
in
any
of
those
projects
that
they
wanted
to
work
on.
And
on
our
end
we
would
connect
them
with
commentators
who
would
be
willing
to
walk
them
through
what
it
would
take
to
implement
those
fixes
or
features
or
just
get
started
contributing
in
some
way
to
advantages.
To.
F
That
would
be
that
we
have
less
upfront
preparation
to
do
the
second
advantage
being
that
when
people
join
us
teams,
it
might
be
something
that
we
can
lean
on
a
sort
of
peer
support
for
folks
like
if,
if
a
team
from
a
certain
company
joins,
maybe
maybe
like
all
five
of
them,
don't
keep
contributing.
But
maybe
two
of
them
do
and
that's
the
thing
that
they
have,
and
it
might
be
something
that
their
company
might
be
willing
to
sponsor.
It's.
C
F
That's
my
rant
Thank
You,
Miguel
mm-hmm,
so
from
the
CPC
I'm
wondering
if
anyone
here
would
want
to
say
suggest
a
next
action
that
we
can
take
as
a
CPC
or
maybe
they
want
to
engage
in
code
and
learn
planning,
because
maybe
that
you
want
to
bring
your
project
in
on
one
of
the
projects
that
wants
to
take
part
in
code
and
learn.
And
maybe
you
have
a
different
idea
of
how
we
should
do
this.
B
F
F
E
Well,
I
mean
so
I
have
been
doing
one
of
those
coding
ones,
yeah
I,
just
I
can't
envision
get
essentially
getting
enough
help
to
even
work.
I
mean
it's
probably
just
gonna.
Be
me
right,
because
you
know
my
other
my
other
maintainer
x'
they're
all
over
the
world,
they're
not
too
many
of
them,
and
it's
unlikely.
We're
ever
gonna,
be
in
the
same
place,
so
I
mean
like
I'm,
not
going
to
be
able
to
get
all
the
issues
ready
and.
E
Just
one
person
people
are
gonna,
have
questions
so
we
for
mocha.
It
doesn't
feel
like.
It
really
makes
sense
unless
we
have
more
people
who
are
socially
maintained,
errs
that
are
able
to
help
at
that
level,
whereas
something
like
node
obviously
has
many
more
people
that
are
that
are
knowledgeable
of
a
codebase
and
can
help
new
contributors.
F
Yeah,
that's
a
really
helpful
perspective
that
is
essentially
also
we're
trying
to
solve
on
a
node
side,
even
with
more
people.
It
is
quite
resource,
intensive
hypothetically
if
it
changed
not
having
to
prepare
issues
and
answer
disparate
questions,
and
it
instead
became
say
one
workshop
where,
where
were
which
was
designed
to
be
facilitated
by
one
person
and
say
a
team
that
already
that
was
open
to
working
on
a
certain
feature
for
the
board
and
say:
hey,
we'll
work
on
whatever
you're,
bringing
or
we'll
work
on
something
related
to
this.
Would
that
be
a.
F
E
If
it
was
small
enough
that
I
could
just
handle
it
myself
and
now
I
can't
imagine
a
group
more
than
maybe
like
four
people,
this
being
anything
greater
than
that,
I
can't
imagine
trying
to
run
it
myself
because
of
all
the
questions,
but
yeah
I
mean
I
would
do
that
and
I'm,
certainly
not
saying
hey
other
projects
shouldn't.
Do
this
either
because
reasons
I'm
just
saying
I,
just
don't
think
it'll
work
for
our
project
unless
it's
something
much
smaller
like
that,
and
and
that's
fine.
E
That
sounds
like
a
great
idea,
but
yeah
I
I'm
not
going
to
have
a
whole
lot
of
time
to
go
through
all
the
issues
and
try
to
figure
stuff
out.
I
might
be
able
to
recruit
other
people
to
say,
okay.
Well,
these
are
the
things
that
we
think
you
know
we
we
think
are
fair
game.
I
mean
we
do
have
like
good
first
issue
stuff,
and
so
maybe
it's
just
a
matter
of
pulling
those
out.
E
D
Also
comes
from
the
point
of
view
of
a
project
doing
this,
it
is
hard
to
see
that
the
amount
of
effort
that
the
core
maintainer
need
to
put
in
to
make
it
work
that
they
would
get
more
and
than
that
effort
out
of
the
whole
process.
I
mean
open-source
development
as
a
whole
and
open
GIS
as
a
whole.
Probably
yes,
about
the
specific
project
that
would
need
to
put
in
the
effort
for
this
it's
hard
to
say
that
it
would
really
balance
out
in
their
favor.
C
A
Thank
you,
yeah
sounds
good,
okay,
great
all
right!
Well,
on
that
note,
I
guess
we'll
call
it
a
laugh.
I
encourage
folks,
though,
to
think
about
this.
This
issue,
this
challenge
and
what
could
work
for
variety
of
projects
and
we'll
continue
the
conversation,
and
so
with
that
we'll
call
it
a
wrap
thanks.
Everyone
for
joining,
see
you
next
week
thanks
folks,
thanks.