►
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
Good
times,
great,
all
right,
so
we're
live
thanks.
Everyone
for
joining
another
episode
of
the
openjs
foundation's
cross
project
console.
What
did
I
just
do
there?
Okay,
that
looks
fine
yeah.
What
are
we
doing?
Do
we
have
any
announcements
before
we
get
into
the
agenda.
D
One
is
that
if
you
love
this
meeting,
you
should
stay
on
for
the
next
one.
It's
the
marketing
meeting
and
it's
important
marketing
is
important.
This
is
where
we
get
to
get
together
and
talk
about
how
to
tell
the
word
world
about
all
of
our
awesome
projects
and
the
awesome
stuff
that
they're
doing
so
come
to
the
marketing
committee
meeting
immediately
following
this
one,
a
whole
museum,
whole
new
topics.
D
Next
ama
also
that's
exciting.
We
love
these
amas.
We've
almost
been
doing
them
for
a
whole
year.
Now,
rachel
really
kicks
tail
at
getting
this.
These
done.
We're
gonna
have
the
amp
tsc
on
and
that's
going
to
be
october
14th
just
a
week
after
we
normally
do
it,
because
announcement
number
three
is
amp.
Fest
is
the
couple
days
before
so
we're
excited
to
share
those
upcoming
things
and
please
do
join
one
join
all
and
these
fun
little
things
that
we
have
going
on.
B
Cool
I
I
guess
I
should
share
I'm
I
I
think
the
open
office
hours
is
maybe
suspended
for
now
and
and
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
the
things
that
were
working
well
there
and
maybe
spin
them
out
into
other
meetings
like
I
I
liked,
when
a
maintainer
from
a
project
would
come
and
share
how
to
get
involved
and
kind
of
go
through
the
whole
process
and
stuff,
so
maybe
we'll
spin
that
out
into
a
different
series
of
webinars
or
whatever
you
call
them
so
yeah
all
right
great.
B
So
we
will
jump
into
the
agenda
here.
Let's
see,
okay,
so
first
thing
on
the
agenda
is
to
simplify
the
proposal
process
miles
opened
this
up
a
couple
of
weeks
ago.
I
think
that
this
is
a
great
idea.
Some
people
have
commented.
B
I
think
that
we
just
need
to
start
working
through
the
details
of
this
and
and
maybe
make
a
pr
to
simplify
the
proposal
progression.
Does
that
seem
accurate?
Does
anybody
have
anything
else
to
add
to
this
or
want
to
talk
about
it?.
E
B
Yeah,
if
anybody
wants
to
take
that
up,
I
strongly
encourage
that
even
just
to
get
something
started
and
we
can
kind
of
iterate
as
a
group
in
the
pr
would
be
great
I
get
time
to.
I
will,
but
I
kind
of
doubt
that
I
will
have
the
time,
so
I
encourage
other
folks
to
consider
it,
but
I
know
we're
all
busy,
but
anyway,
so,
okay,
well,
we'll
we'll
see
how
that
progresses
and
and
kind
of
carry
on,
and
hopefully
an
upcoming
pr
move
that
forward
beyond
that.
B
The
next
item
is
pull
request,
618,
which
I
merged
yesterday.
I
think
this
is
the
ip
policy
guidance
yeah.
I
merged
that.
Yesterday
toby
wrote
this
put
this
together,
working
with
brian,
so
that
is
an
official
document.
Now,
at
the
top
level,
I
remember
correctly:
yup
ippolicyguidance.md
and
our
cross
project
console
repository.
F
G
Good
question:
it's
a
good
question,
so
she
can
probably
be
really
whatever
you
want.
As
long
as
it's
one
of
the
approved
licenses,
one
of
the
reasons
for
having
a
separate
documentation
license
is
just
that.
You
know
there
are
a
variety
of
folks
who
you
know
stare
at
licenses
on
a
daily
basis
and
for
their
for
their
main
job.
Who
have
said
that
you
know
it's
a
little
bit
easier
and
there's
a
little
bit
less
friction
involved
in.
G
You
know
using
some
of
the
documentation
licenses
instead,
so
it
really,
you
know
if
it's,
if
it's
not
a
problem
that
needs
fixing
I'd,
say
you're,
probably
okay,
but
at
the
same
time
you
know
they
are
there
to
make
things
a
little
bit
easier.
Okay,
thanks!
F
No,
that's
totally
fine,
I
just
didn't
know
the
specific
well.
Most
of
our
documentation
is
basically
like
in
the
repo
with
the
code,
so
we
had
just
always
just
licensed
it
under
the
same
as
our
source
code,
but
I
I
understand
that.
B
Cool
cool,
thank
you
so
up
next
is
the
I
swapped
a
couple
things
around:
updating
the
cla
to
the
apache
style,
icla
and
ccla,
and
the
related
pr,
which
is
provide
implementation
guidance
for
dcocla,
toby
or
brian.
Would
you
like
to
comment
on
this.
G
Yeah,
so
on
the
adopting
the
cla
kind
of
going
back
the
long
arc
of
this
we
had
started
this
off
with
the
legal
committee
and
they'd
said
you
know
basically
adhering
to
the
principle
of
least
astonishment:
let's
switch
the
cla
over
to
the
apache
style
text,
because
it's
pretty
pretty
typical
in
the
industry.
We
started
a
board
vote
on
this.
The
board
said
in
the
process.
You
know
we
should
make
sure
before
we
finish
this,
that
we've
got
full
input
from
the
cpc
to
date.
G
I
haven't
seen
anything
recently
well,
there
have
been
some
comments,
but
I
think
we've
got
them
all
resolved
on
switching
to
the
apache
template
instead
of
the
the
one
that
we
inherited
from
jsf.
So
I
think,
unless
there
are
any
objections
with
this,
we
could
go
back
to
the
board
and
say
that
the
cpc
has
had
their
questions
answered.
G
H
Brian,
it
took
me
like
six
weeks,
a
six
months
to
get
the
ip,
so
you
know
you're
in
good
company.
There.
G
E
B
Yeah
yep
and
I
added
the
cross
project
council
agenda
to
that
yesterday.
So
if
we
close
the
previous
one,
you
know
assuming
we
don't
want
to
close
it
before
you
know
we
take
it
back
to
the
board.
I've
already
applied
the
label
to
this
to
the
one
that
you
opened
toby
asking
for
implementation
guidance,
so.
H
I
just
have
a
quick
question:
if
I
made
brian
on
583,
the
input
from
the
cpc
has
been
taken
back
to
the
board
already
or
not.
Yet
I'm
a
bit
confused
about
like
the
steps
there
and
whether
the
board
has
actually
formally
approved
the
apache
style
clas
or
not.
Yet.
G
No,
so
we're
actually
we're
mid
vote
on
this.
Okay,
yeah.
H
C
H
G
Right
yeah,
I
I.
I
will
also
say
that
we
have
a
legal
committee.
Call
a
member
legal
counsel
call
coming
up
roman.
I
think
it's
thursday
right
thursday,
that's
right
yeah!
So
one
of
the
topics
on
there
is
maybe
to
get
a
little
bit
more
clarity
around
the
ways
that
we
handle
dco
sign
offs
that
were
somebody
missed
putting
it
in
the
message
which
has
been
a
topic
of
conversation.
G
So
that's
explicitly
on
the
agenda.
We're
gonna
do
our
best
to
get
some
final
guidance
on
that
as
well,
which
would
then
go
into
this.
You
know
effectively
a
playbook
of
if
you're,
gonna
use
dco
do
this
if
you're
gonna
use
cli
do
this
so
we're
we're
working
our
way
in
towards
comprehensive
solutions
here,
which
feels
really
good.
Honestly,.
E
G
G
B
H
You
want
to
give
us
an
update,
sure
we've
met
twice.
We
did
some
blue
ocean
thinking
for
a
while,
and
then
thanks
to
chris
chris
hiller,
who
sort
of
like
brought
us
back
to
reality,
decided
to
focus
on
meaningful
things
that
we
could
do
right
away.
H
F
On
behalf
of
intern,
I
would
say
I
think
intern
is
probably
going
to
suggest
that
it
becomes
an
at-large
project
just
because
I
don't
think
there's
enough
interest
in
becoming
an
impact
project
for
it.
It's
it's
like
a
testing
tool
that
a
lot
of
people
use,
but
it's
probably
never
going
to
focus
on
being
like
the
big
testing
tool
that
everyone
uses
and
it's
just
not
there.
F
So-
and
I
know
this
is
sort
of
asked
elsewhere,
but
it
it
feels
like
like
some
of
the
projects
that
are
most.
The
projects
that
are
sort
of
under
at
large
are
kind
of
like
smaller
libraries,
right
or
maybe
bigger
libraries
might
be.
Maybe
they're
widely
used
but
they're
not
really
looking
to
like
become
frameworks
right
and
then
most
of
the
stuff
on
our
impact
project
are
pretty
big
frameworks
or
have
really
large
communities.
F
H
Not
super
clear
if
we
should
continue
having
growth
as
a
sort
of
like
intermediatey
stage
like
a
stage
in
the
middle
of
moving
from
at
large
to
impact
or
if
we,
if
it
should
be
renamed
and
being
a
sort
of
like
thing
in
the
middle
that
exists
as
such,
and
that
the
actual
growth
plan
could
be
something
that
any
project
could
like
ask
and
do
you
know
maybe,
like
I
don't
know
every
other
year
or
something
like
this,
so
this
is
sort
of
like
still
in
in
the
in
the
yeah.
H
We're
not
really
clear
about
this
and,
I
think,
actually
having
the
feedback
from
projects
that
are
in
growth,
and
that
would
like
to
stay
there,
but
wouldn't
want
to
move
to
impact
would
be
kind
of
useful.
So
if
we
go
back
to
this
blue
ocean
thinking
at
some
point,
it
would
be
great
if
you
could
join
us
or
have
someone
from
that
project.
Join
it
to.
E
D
G
So
initially
there
was
the
understanding
that
the
impact
projects
would
probably
have
the
most
need,
for
you
know,
for
money
for
doing
things
like
conferences
or
for
marketing
support,
or
things
like
that
that
at
large
projects
would
be
the
ones
which
were
you
know,
stable
and
comfortable,
didn't
necessarily
need
a
whole
lot
other
than
to
have
a
home
and
have
a
structure
and
have
representation
on
the
cpc
and
growth
was
meant
to
be
effectively.
G
You
know
these
are
projects
which
otherwise
were
not
big
but
were
intending
to
become
bigger
and
then
would
need
some
additional
time
focus,
energy,
money,
etc.
So
that
that
was
the
way
these
were
originally
conceived.
I'm
not
saying
they
need
to
stay
that
way
or
anything
like
that,
but
maybe,
if
that
kind
of
helps
put
put
it
into
a
context
of
why
they
were
why
they
were
put
together.
This
particular
way.
F
A
A
E
Right
like
it's,
that
that
was,
that
was
what
the
issue
that
was
brought
up
is
that
it's
probably
time
to
change
that.
If
we're
going
to
continue
with
the
original
idea,
which
was
that
they
it'd
be
a
growth
phase
versus
a
you
know,
a
stay
forever
kind
of
thing,
and
and
and
because
I
think
you
know
the
first
year
we
focused
on
just
getting
everything
up
and
running
we're
past.
D
I
mean
for
what
it's
worth.
I
really
I
do
like
the
idea
of
there
being
some
kind
of
growth-ish
designation,
because
I
think
that's
a
great
play
way
for
a
project
to
put
their
hand
up
and
say:
hey.
You
know
we
actually
have
a
goal.
We
want
to
add.
D
You
know
three
new
people
to
our
tsc
and
we
want
to
make
sure
our
steering
committee-
and
we
want
to
you,
know,
make
sure
they're
from
a
diversity
of
companies
and
that
kind
of
thing,
okay,
cool,
like
that's
something
we
can
help
with
as
a
cpc.
We
can
help
with
as
a
foundation
and
the
at-large
designation
has
been
largely.
You
know,
hey
we're
happy
with
how
things
are
going
status
quo
for
us
is
good
right
now,
so
you
know
just
that.
Other
phase
that
says
we
want
to.
D
We
want
some
extra
help
with
something
specific
is
useful.
Now,
if
nobody's
using
that
right
now,
because
we
don't
have
they
don't
actually
have
you
know
a
goal
in
mind
or
something
then
yeah,
they
should
move
to
a
different
thing,
but
I
think
that's
the
spirit.
H
Toby
yeah,
one
of
the
things
joe
suggested
in
our
last
meeting
on
this
topic,
was
to
have
a
work
session
of
the
cpc
on
this.
Should
we
postpone
this
conversation
that
we're
having
now
to
such
a
session
and
decide
to
organize
one
today,
maybe
in
two
weeks.
B
Sounds
good
to
me,
yeah
plus
one
yeah,
and
then
maybe
by
that
point,
we'll
we'll
have
some
of
the
other
stuff
fleshed
out
a
little
bit
and
some
more
things
to
talk
about.
Perhaps
toby.
B
E
B
Yeah-
and
I
feel
like
too,
our
agenda
is
reflecting
that
you
know
we're
moving
forward
on
some
things,
which
is
great,
and
you
know
it
might
be
a
light
agenda
for
next
week
anyway.
So
I
I
I'm
all
for
diving
into
the
project
review.
I
feel
like
the
project
review
could
be
a
bigger
topic
too.
You
know
if
we
we
think
about
the
whole
360
thing
so
more
work.
We
do
on
it.
I
think
the
better
do
we.
F
D
Christian
broman
also
attends
some
cpc
meetings
where
he
can
and
nick
o'leary.
I
believe
note
red
is
a
great
project.
H
But
christian
was
on,
I
think,
both
of
the
calls-
or
at
least
one
of
them
and
okay,
I'm
not
wrong
he's
on
the
same
time
zone
as
like
european
time
zones.
So
it
should
be
easy
for
him
next
week.
E
B
Well,
I
I
wonder
about
maybe
doing
the
next
two
weeks
and
that
way
we
really
kind
of
cover
the
gamut
and
you
know,
can
work
in
the
pr
we
can.
You
know
it
doesn't
have
to
be
all
synchronous,
but
if
we
maybe
dedicate
the
next
two
weeks,
we
could
really
make
some
progress
on
this.
B
Yep
and
and
if
I
may
ask
toby
or
chris,
you
know
any
prep
work
to
do
before
the
meeting
would
be
great
to
jump
us
right
into
a
productive
session.
B
Regardless
so,
let's,
let's,
I
guess,
let's
plan
for
next
week,
sorry
chris
it'll
be
early,
but
you
know
potentially
do
the
next
two
weeks
in
a
row
and
work
on
the
growth
project
process.
B
Yeah
all
right
cool-
let's
tentatively
plan
the
next
two
weeks
to
work
on
this,
and
we
can
do
it
synchronously
great,
and
I
was
just
saying
to
toby
and
chris.
If
you
can
help
with
any
sort
of
prep
work
or
let
me
know
how
I
can
help
just
to
make
the
in-person
sessions
as
productive
as
possible.
B
Cool
well
great
great,
I'm
excited
about
that,
but
we
will
move
on
unless
anybody
has
anything
else
to
add.
If
anyone
can
drop
some
notes
in
that
conversation.
For
for
the
meeting
notes,
that
would
be
great,
and
I
will
jump
over
to
you,
michael
for
the
next
issue:
pull
request.
547
governance,
changes
for
collab
network.
E
E
E
G
E
Right
because,
yes,
where
is
that.
G
It
was
adding
guidance
or
something
to
it.
It's
fun.
E
E
There
was
some
back
and
forth
and
you
know
I
think
brian
has
added
in
like
some
wording
about
why,
and
so.
If
this
can
land,
then
the
next
step
would
be
to
rebase
547,
which
is
the
government's
change
for
the
collaboration
network
and
in
which
case
we
could
go
back
to
the
board
and
say:
okay,
we've
updated
based
on
suggestions.
B
Great
great,
so
then,
if
I
understand
correctly,
you'll
land
that
you'll
rebase
and
then
you'll
take
the
547
to
the
board
correct.
B
All
right
great,
so
you
can
drop
that
into
the
docs.
I
will
move
on
so
responsible
security.
Disclosures
is
next
there's
a
related
pull
request.
This
is
issue
326..
B
The
pull
request
is
6
33.
This
is
moving
the
the
proposal
to
stage
three.
We've
got
a
few
approvals
here.
It's
been
open
for
two
weeks.
E
E
A
B
Excellent,
all
right
so
moving
on.
The
next
item
is
something
born
out
of
the
project
review
process,
rename
project
onboarding
repo
to
project
status.
Toby
opened
this
11
hours
ago.
You
want
to
give
some
context
here.
Toby.
H
Yeah,
essentially,
the
idea
was
the
road
mapping
for
growth
projects
should
follow
a
vaguely,
similar
solution
to
project
onboarding,
which
has
proven
to
work
reasonably
well
and
on
the
hands.
Why
don't
we
stick
everything
in
the
same
repository
that
will
be
easier
to
review,
and
hence
we
just
have
to
rename
that
repository.
H
There
was
consensus
among
the
three
to
four
to
five
people
on
that
issue
to
move
forward
with
this,
and
so
this
is
like
a
formal
request
to
get
approval
from
sort
of
the
the
broader
cpc,
as
we
don't
really
have
a
process
to
do
this
differently
than
using
an
issue.
B
Yeah
seems
good
to
me:
you
get
10
thumbs
there
as
of
now,
so
I
I
think,
like
toby
said,
there's
not
a
clear
process
to
this,
but
does
anybody
have
any
objections
to
just
moving
forward
or
do?
Does
anybody
think
we
need
to
like
wait
a
certain
amount
of
time?
I
feel
like
it's
pretty
non-controversial.
B
Likewise,
just
curious
michael
have
what
how
does
this
work
in
node
as
a
project
renaming.
E
Does
that
need
to
be
open?
For
I
don't
know
if
we
have
actually
a
renaming
policy,
we
have
a
like
when
you
want
to
ask
for
a
new
repo,
you
open
issue
and
admin,
and
it
waits
a
couple
days.
E
You
know
I
I
I'm
I'm.
I
think
this
is
fine
for
us
to
rename
it
it's
the
kind
of
thing
somebody
can
complain
afterwards
we
could
undo
it.
It's
not
can't
see
it
being
too
controversial
anyway.
So
yeah
yeah.
B
B
F
E
E
B
I
No
worries
I'm
on
it,
so
the
next
issue
is
the
supporter
program,
I'm
assuming
I'm
not
following
along
on
the
dock,
but
I'm
assuming
that.
I
I
missed
the
call-
oh
great
the
so
we
met
last
week
to
talk
spec,
there's
some
fun
stuff
on
the
spec
to
take
a
look
at
toby
left
a
bunch
of
comments.
Thank
you
and
look
at
those
this
afternoon.
The
goal
here
is
to
get
this
out
by
early
october,
and
in
order
to
do
that,
we
need
to
move
it
along
during
the
phases
and
also
get
it
in
front
of
the
board.
I
So
people
don't
mind
taking
a
look
this
week,
there's
a
lot
of
to-do's
here
with
a
lot
of
help
from
the
foundation
in
general.
I
think
very
little
falls
upon
the
cpc,
besides
maintaining
the
supporter
network
and
just
being
here,
to
help
when
needed.
So
if
you
have
time
this
week,
take
a
look
thumbs
up
thumbs
down
I'll
work
to
resolve
comments
as
they
come
in
and
maybe
we
can
have
a
the
idea
is
to
get
it
to
phase
two
and
then
in
front
of
the
board,
which
I
assume
that's
phase
three.
E
C
Oh
nope,
when
we've
outlined
them
all
and
we're
executing
so
excited.
I
Great
yeah
take
a
look
when
you
get
a
chance
for
fun
and
feel
free
to
add
in
your
own
suggestions.
We
can,
we
can
include
them
or
or
not.
So
I
guess
is
it.
Would
it
be
a
reasonable
goal
to
try
to
get
it
into
phase
three
in
two
weeks?
If
we're
super
responsive
on
comments
and
things
like
that,.
E
E
B
Sounds
good
to
me:
let's,
let's
keep
an
idea
too,
if
we're
going
to
work
on
the
review
process
next
week
to
just
check
in
on
this
first
and
and
look
forward.
Okay,
awesome.
I
E
B
B
So
if
you
don't
mind,
we
can
hang
out
for
a
minute
and
I'll
I'll
call
it
a
wrap
on
the
public
meeting
cool
great.
Well,
thanks
everybody
for
watching.
If
you're
watching
or
you
know
in
the
future,
I
hope
we
have
flying
cars.
I
will
stop.