►
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
B
D
C
J/S
world
schedule
has
been
announced
and
it
actually
I've
been
like
super
excited
for
this
a
while,
and
he
did
an
amazing
job.
There's
some
killer
keynotes
and
it's
all
it's
all
gonna
be
virtual.
So
you
don't
have
to
worry,
although
we
will
miss
having
tacos
and
empanadas
with
everybody
and
in
Austin
and
we'll
just
you
know,
we'll
just
be
in
Austin
spiritually,
you
know
and
make
our
margaritas
at
home
and
we're
gonna
have
a
great
time.
C
So
you
know
check
out
our
blog
post
on
the
open,
JSF
org
blog
for
all
the
all
the
info.
We're
also
doing
a
lot
of
exciting
planning
for
collab
summit,
which
includes
expanding
collab
summit
from
a
two-day
thing
to
a
three-day
thing.
So
we'll
start
on
Monday
with
some
great
like
new
contributor
content
and
then
we'll
have
the
conference
on
Tuesday
and
Wednesday
and
then
we'll
get
back
into
a
collab
7th
content
with
those
projects
focus
sessions
on
Thursday
Friday,
and
so
we
would
really
love
for
everyone
to
and
to
come
and
to
get
involved.
E
B
Jory
was
so
gracious
and
putting
together
a
little
bit
of
a
presentation
for
us
to
kind
of
get
a
grasp
on
where
we
are
now
what
our
kind
of
problems,
the
hurdles
that
were
facing
at
the
moment,
around
code
of
conduct
and
related
aspects-
and
you
know
potentially
how
we
might
move
forward
and
make
some
more
progress.
Do
you
want
to
share
and
walk
us
through?
It
Jory
sure.
C
You
know
one
of
the
things
that
I
spend
a
pretty
decent
amount
of
my
time
on
is
helping
projects
navigate
and,
and
you
know,
understand
what
they
need
to
be
doing
and
where
resources
are
and
so
on
and
so
forth,
and
there
have
been
a
lot
of
times
that
even
I
feel
very
confused
about
what's
where
and
that
kind
of
stuff.
So
this
deck
was
was
mostly
to
I'm,
getting
some
plus
ones
to
screen
share.
C
So
I'll
do
that
then-
and
we
actually
do
that,
so
this
deck
was
a
large
part
to
help
me
get
organized
and
I
think
that
I
hope
that
it
will
help
and
y'all
get
a
bit
organized
too,
and
to
also
think
about
what
some
of
the
that,
like
the
challenges
we
have
with
the
current
state
of
things
and
and
maybe
where,
where
might
we
want
to
take
it
moving
forward?
So,
on
the
first
slide,
which
you
should
see
here
and
I,
don't
want
to
end
totally,
why
can't
I
do
this
alright?
C
Well,
I,
don't
want
to
totally
do
in
present
mode,
because
I
think
that
will
make
it
harder
for
me
to
see
your
faces
and
stuff
and
the
chat.
But
there
we
go
is
the
reference
materials
and,
as
you
can
see,
we
have
three
different
documents
that
contain
information
that
a
person
might
need
to
understand
our
COC,
and
we
have
several
different
open,
pull
requests
right
now
related
to
the
COC
and
that's
just
more
for
for
further
FYI.
C
From
these
documents
we
have
about
four
different
and
like
areas
that
are
places
that
in
some
way
govern
our
code
of
conduct,
they're
the
project,
specific
and
reporting
environment,
so
obviously
the
the
report
at
node
or
amp
or
for
each
individual
project,
there's
the
CPC
specific
reporting
path,
which
is
listed
in
two
different
ways
and
I'll
show
you
and
it's
just
a
second
where
we
have.
We
have
currently
the
report:
atlas,
open,
JSF,
dot,
org,
but
there's
also
a
report
reports.
Sorry
at
open,
JSF
org.
That's
that's
imagined
and
it's
unclear.
C
C
C
Other
additional
questions
are
you
know
we
don't
we're
not
entirely
sure
what
to
expect
you
know.
So
where
could
we
go
find
out
what
we
need
to
know
to
to
expect
some
things?
There's
questions
about
the
relationship
between
the
code
of
conduct
panel
and
the
project's
autonomy
in
handling
its
own
reporting.
So
basically
you
know:
what's
what
authority
does
it
have?
If
somebody
does
escalate
something-
and
you
know
how
can
we
get
involved
with
evolving
Foundation
policies
on
code
of
conduct
matters
moving
forward?
C
These
are
our
questions
for
which
we
really
don't
have
super
clear
answers
just
yet
for
the
reports
list.
As
I
pointed
out,
we
have
this
discrepancy
where
we're
saying
we
want
people
to
report
to
report
at
open,
JSF
morgue,
but
the
list
that
we
currently
have
is
report
at
list
on
open,
JSF.
Torgue.
So-
and
you
know,
one
open
question
is:
is
that
is
that
meant
to
be
the
same
thing
or
is
that
actually
two
different
when
they're
two
different
things
they're,
something
so
good
right,
yep.
A
C
Yeah
so
I
think
maybe
this
also
just
highlights
that,
because
we're
in
like
this
very
like
important
space,
where
there's
also
there
can
be
some
naming
issues
right,
it's
hard
to
come
up
with,
like
an
ich
unique
name
like
I
gave,
pause
and
so
I
don't
know
if
those
are
supposed
to
be
two
different
things
or
not.
So
currently
that
mailing
list
is
populated
by
some
folks
from
the
from
the
CPC
and
staff,
but
one
of
the
things
we
haven't
figured
out
yet
is
where
what
space
is?
What
actual
spaces
are?
C
That
is
this
group
avail
of
supposed
to
be
responsible
for
and
what
might
different
implications
be
for
projects
if
a
violation
occurs
in
one
of
our
spaces
so
well?
Well,
we're
these
are
open
questions
we'll
work
on
them
right.
It's
not
like.
We
need
to
come
up
with
the
answer
now,
but
for
the
COC
escalation
we
just
to
have
some
generic
open
questions
from
folks,
primarily
who
haven't
heard
trying
to
implement
the
policies.
So
you
know
it
what
what
is
the
nature
of
the
panel?
Is
it
actually
like
a?
C
Is
it
like
the
Supreme
Court
of
code
of
conducts
you
know
where
it's
like?
You
could
appeal
to
that
and
then,
like
their
final
ruling,
is
you
know
that's
final
or
is
it
just
optional?
You
know,
is
there
do
if
they
take
a
decision
on
a
project
for
a
certain
thing?
Does
that
set
precedent
that
other
other
projects
need
to
follow?
C
And
then
this
is
also
related
to
the
another
question
from
last
week
is:
do
we
want
people
who
are
active
in
the
CPC
to
be
populating
this
panel
slash
active
in
specific
projects,
or
is
this
something
that
we
want
to
include
more
experts
from
outside
the
community?
Who
may
be
great
advisors
for
this
space
so
there
and
then,
of
course,
our
Charter
are
named
/c
as
yet
to
be
chartered
group.
C
C
So
these
are.
This
is
my
perspective
now
like
these
are
the
challenges
that
I've
noticed
and
maybe
they're
not
all
shared,
and
that's
that
I'd
love
to
know.
You
know
what
other
people
think,
but
I
think
one
of
the
challenges
we
have
is
that
we
we
we
have
this
system,
but
we
don't
have
super
clear
stories
for
the
people
who
would
be
moving
through
the
system
and
I.
Think
that
needs
to
be
perhaps
spelled
outs
a
little
bit
more
we're
you
know.
C
What's
the
what's
the
use
case
for
a
person
filing
a
report,
what
is
obviously
that's
should
be
in
my,
in
my
opinion,
that's
the
primary
constituency
to
try
and
serve,
but
also
project
maintainer
x',
who
have
to
implement
our
policies
like.
Are
we
getting
the
the
information
and
the
support
that
they
need?
Is
that
very
clear?
Is
that
very
accessible
to
them?
C
The
autonomy
of
our
our
bar
group?
So
here
is
a
question
that
has
popped
up
several
times
like
okay,
you
know
and
the
scope
of
my
capacity
in
say
a
project
reporting
group.
How
does
that
relate
to
the
CPC
reporting
group
or
the
COC
P
panel
and
who
who's
got
final
say
you
know
in,
for
example,
a
question
of
a
report?
C
I
think
perhaps
we've
got
too
much
complexity.
This
is
again
just
my
observation
of
the
challenge.
We've
we've
got
these
four
different
groups
and
perhaps
those
identifiers
are
not
unique
enough
or
two
to
limit
confusion.
Someone
pointed
out
yesterday,
like
one
of
the
things,
could
be
that
a
reporter
accidentally
contacts
the
wrong
group
to
respond
to
an
issue
and
then
there's
some
violation
of
trucks
that
may
her
and
that's
really
bad
like
we
really
don't
want
to
don't
want
to
let
somebody
down.
C
Think
that
the
more
that
we
have
the
more
connections
and
communications
lines
we
have
to
build
into
the
system
and-
and
that
makes
it
just
more
challenging
to
keep
everybody
informed
enough
to
speed
so
for
a
straw
person
proposal
of
what
we
could
do.
It
maybe
like
another
point-
I
want
to
make
it's
like.
Maybe
this
is
fine,
like
maybe
once
but
I
think
that
may
be
fine
in
a
future
state
where
we
have
a
lot
more.
C
So
the
folks
on
on
that
list
and
others
who
may
may
raise
their
hand
to
volunteered,
and
we
treat
it
similarly
to
the
the
standards
working
group
where
there's
a
scope
and
a
list
of
priority
areas
that
are
approved
by
the
CPC,
and
that
group
is
empowered
to
make
progress
on
these
issues
and
its
own
repo.
So
we're
carving
that
out
and
making
it
a
little
bit
more
clear
where
and
where
these
things
are
are
tackled.
C
Part
two
of
the
my
strong
person
proposal
would
be
to
and
confirm
that
the
COC
P
is
an
advisory
panel
and
that
that
that
panel
is
there
to
do
QA,
testing
and
feedback,
and
that
kind
of
thing
analysis
on
on
the
policies
that
we're
looking
to
propose
and
handles
escalations
when
a
project
is
requesting
that
extra,
since
or
at
the
consent
of
a
project
when
a
reporter
has
escalated
a
a
thing.
It
has
escalated
an
issue,
but
in
my
notes,
I
have
a
link
to
the
like
the
electron
working
group.
C
That's
community
and
safety
working
group
I
think
that's
kind
of
very
similar
to
what
I
would
be
proposing
for
this
merged.
Cfc
working
group
/
CPC
reporting
group,
but
this
is
just
spaghetti
on
a
wall.
It
is
not
anything
that
I
don't
know.
If
that's
a
common
saying
Toby
would
probably
make
me
put
a
dollar
in
my
bucket
there,
but
that's
just
that.
It's
just
a
proposal
I'm
not
committed
to
it
than
anyway
anyway
that
so
this
is
what
I
put
together
just
to
to
share
and
start.
B
F
Yeah,
mostly
just
we
haven't,
talked
about
the
one
thing
that
I
think
is
missing
from
this,
which
is
the
onboarding
/
training
or
whatever
you
want
to
call
it
to
make
sure
people
are
aware
of
what
the
COC
is
and
strategies
to
make
sure
that
people
are
aware
of
things
not
to
do
to
get
in
trouble
with
the
COC.
Just
like.
Basically,
you
know,
we
know
we
need
a
system,
we
know
someone's
going
to
violate
it,
but
what
can
we
do
to
risk
or
to
reduce
the
opportunities
for
people
to
violate
it?
F
Without
you
know
what
I
mean
like
most
of
us
on
this
call
are
very
familiar
with
code
of
convicts,
but
oftentimes
people
new
to
open-source
may
not
be
familiar
with
the
concept
at
all.
We're
just
making
sure
that,
if
some
strategy,
when
someone
joins
a
project
like
make
sure
they're
supported
and
understanding
what
the
expectations
are,
we
do
a
pretty
good
job
with
us
with
dojo,
but
I'm
not
sure
we
have
something
formalised
that.
C
F
C
G
Well
I
know
like
in
the
for
the
node
project,
there's
like
an
actual
onboarding
for
collaborators
and
I'm.
Pretty
sure
part
of
that
is
like
a
reminder
that
you
need
to
read
in
all
the
COC,
but
if
there
is
some
other
like
I,
don't
know
like
you're
thinking
more
of
a
like
a
15
minutes,
video
or
something
I,
don't
know
it
could
be
like
here's
another
thing
you
can
go
watch.
H
So
one
thing
that
might
be
worth
adding
here
is
well
Dylan,
depending
on
the
way
you
want
to
do
it
like
the
way
in
which
note
is
implemented
the
code
of
conduct.
We
have
a
moderation
repo
inside
of
our
org,
which
is
private
and
we
have
like
basically
a
playbook
like.
So
it's
not
just
the
code
of
conduct,
but
it's
moderation,
guidelines
that
are
extremely
important
here
as
well,
because
otherwise,
like.
How
do
you
even
apply
the
code
of
conduct?
In
fact,
I
would
argue
a
code
of
conduct
without
moderation.
H
H
When
someone
wants
to
make
an
anonymous
report,
so
I
won't
say
who
was
about
that?
I
have
had
conflict
with
people
before
and
like
have
relationship
problems,
and
you
know,
I
I
have
made
that
from
report
anyways
I'm
getting
off-topic
the
reason
why
I
mentioned
that
is
I.
Think
that
there's
ways
for
your
project
to
kind
of
like
self-regulate,
without
needing
like
a
full
committee
yeah,
a
lot
of
that
can
be
managed
by
yourselves
I.
Think.
F
A
lot
of
the
projects
could
benefit
from
what
Note
has
done
over
the
years,
because
I
know
that,
like
the
history
of
node
is
kind
of
that,
you
were
not
great
at
this
in
the
first
couple
years
and
now
you're
one
of
the
best
at
it.
So
just
you've
definitely
learned
a
lot
over
the
years
that
other
projects,
maybe
just
haven't,
had
to
deal
with.
But
you
know
it
could
benefit
from
that
knowledge
that
you've
gained
too
I.
Also.
G
Reusable
assets,
I
think,
would
be
you
know
drawn
from
whatever
a
group
or
to
a
project.
We
have,
you
know,
experience
in
to
say
here's
and
it
doesn't
have
to
be
like
the
complicated
version
but
I
think
where
you're
going
jewelry
is
like
some
base
assets
that
any
project
could
apply
to
start
out
with
would
actually
be
quite
helpful.
You
know
a
new
project
joins.
Oh
here's.
Some
base
assets
I
suspect
a
lot
of
the
time
unless
they
already
got
something
they'll
say:
oh
yeah,
that.
F
I
So
that's
that's
the
only
thing
I
I'd
say
on
that
and
then
additionally
I
just
like
to
add
that,
like
personally
I,
definitely
think
that
there
are
things
that
you
know,
node
could
improve
still
and
I
also
do
think
it's
it's
worth.
You
know
if
we
do
pull
things
and
also
kind
of
going
through
and
continuing
to
iterate
and
see
how
we
can
evolve
things
to
make
them
better.
H
With
that
being
said
to
the
slide
that
Joey
has
here,
Dre
I'm
super
in
support
of
like
taking
these
various
initiatives
that
we
have
and
just
creating
a
focused
working
group
to
solve
these
problems
and
we're
probably
not
going
to
solve
them
in
a
discussion
in
in
this
single
meeting.
But
I
think
that
the
proposal
that
you're
making
here
is
is
very
sound
and
I.
Think
that
a
great
way
to
move
forward
is
to
get
a
group
of
people
who
are
focused
on
it
meeting
regularly
and
being
empowered
to
make
those
decisions.
I
Also
like
to
extend
that
and
say
like
some
of
the
answers
around
onboarding
are
particularly
confusing
and
challenging,
and
so
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
group
that
kind
of
yeah
you
can
like
whether
it's
for
current
current
groups,
onboarding
or
future
onboarding,
just
make
sure
to
disambiguate
that
and
like
get
clear
guidelines
out.
Yeah.
C
Maybe
even
to
be
more
direct
to
Tierney's
point,
these
issues
have
contributed
significantly
to
certain
projects
being
slow
to
get
through
the
incubation
process,
and
that's
a
bummer
I
want
to
go
fast
on
that
stuff.
So,
to
the
extent
that
we
can
and
kind
of
unlock,
this
I
think
it
would
be
great
for
a
lot
of
those
new
project.
Community
members
who
want
to
get
in
and
get
involved,
I.
G
Think
you
know
either
I
agree.
We're
not
gonna
solve
all
these
things
in
one
meeting.
I
do
think
it'd
be
worth
spending
at
least
a
small
amount
of
time.
Seeing
if
we
can
draw
that
line
between
the
two
and
have
agreement
on
that,
you
know
I
think
you
you
have
the
CEO
PCO
CPE
pretty
much
as
it's
written,
except
for,
except
for
a
few
things
like
the
handles
COC
escalations
from
reporters
with
project
consent.
C
Don't,
and-
and
this
is
something,
though,
that
that
I
think
has
been
a
piece
of
feedback
from
other
from
some
projects,
because
the
escalation
path
and
that
sort
of
like
the
finality,
for
example,
of
the
COC
pees
decision
on
an
on
an
issue
is
unclear
that
the
concern
is
that
a
project
doesn't
necessarily
want
to
see
that
that
final
decision
over
to
the
COC
P,
without
having
the
choice
to
have
done
so-
and
so
you
know,
I-
think
the
this
as
a
modification
would
at
least
temporarily
allay
that
concern.
But
that
would
be
something.
G
H
H
You
know
like
the
idea
of
the
CEO
CP
the
idea
of
these
different
things
that
we've
had.
You
know
we
kind
of
built
that
in
a
vacuum
and
not
that
they
couldn't
be
successful
but
like
I
at
this
point
they
have
not
gained
traction
and
are,
in
fact
actually
like
causing
friction.
So
I
think
not
that
we
need
to
kind
of
like
throw
everything
out
and
start
from
scratch.
I
think
the
bit
to
this
that
I
find
really
compelling.
Is
you
know
the
CPC
has
so
many
things
that
we're
working
on
now?
C
I
mean
we've
got
a
bunch
of
different,
like
implementation,
details
right
that
are
really
important
to
think
through.
That
have
been
really
hard
for
us
to
think
through,
like
completely
and
in
the
manner
that
we've
currently
been
proceeding,
which
is
very
asynchronous
and
generally
just
kind
of
doing
so
in
right.
G
C
C
C
So
yes,
so
this
report
list
and
there
we
go
this
mailing
list,
which
is
populated
with
these
ten
people,
though,
that
list
of
names
came
from
a
couple
of
series
of
earlier
conversations
we
had
about
and
into
a
different
PR
and
some
number
of
weeks
ago,
and
that
list
those
people
raised
their
hands
to
agree
to
respond.
If
a
issue
came
in,
if
somebody,
if
there
was
a
report
that
was
filed,
that
they
that
they
would
respond
to
moderate,
that
my
proposal
is
because
for
better
for
worse,
we
have
had
no
messages
so
far.
G
Wouldn't
limit,
like
you
know
so,
I
just
talk
from
my
personal
viewpoint.
I,
don't
necessarily
need
to
volunteer
to
be
handling
the
specific
reports,
but
I
might
want
to
be
involved
in
the
group
that
figures
out
what
the
processes
are
gonna
be
right,
so
I
don't
know
if
other
people
would
would
be
in
the
same.
The
same
ballpark
and
just
don't
want
to
make
don't
want
to
discourage
anybody
from
joining
because
they
have
to
do
one
thing
versus
some
of
the
other
work.
G
C
C
The
difference
between
like
booting,
something
up
and
maintaining
the
things
in
an
ongoing
fashion
are
very
different
and
I
want
to
ensure
that
the
people
who
will
be
maintaining
the
thing
in
an
ongoing
fashion
that
their
voices
are
hyper
prioritized
in
this
boot
up
phase
right,
so
that,
because
those
are
the
folks
that
are
really
going
to
have
to
live
and
experience
and
manage
the
thing
and
I
just
feel
just
a
strong
desire
to
ensure
that
we
have
plenty
of
people
who
also
want
to
maintain
the
thing
moving
forward.
Yeah.
G
C
So
I
I
may
like
encourage
or
posit
that
folks
who,
who
want
to
you,
know
support
or
provide
feedback,
or
you
know
in
some
way
just
offer
hey.
Did
you
think
of
X,
Y
or
Z
like
that?
That
is
a
perhaps
a
different,
that's
a
different
level
of
participation.
Then
you
know
folks,
who
are
with
try
to
actively
kind
of
going
okay,
weird.
We
are
building
this
thing
out
because
we
are
actually
going
to
go,
implement
it
many
times
over
in
different
places
and
run
the
thing
on
going.
B
H
I
reviewed
our
governance
and
the
way
in
which
we
landed.
It
was
that,
like
chartering,
takes
the
same
amount
of
time
as
like
a
govern
any
change
to
governance,
so
it
needs
two
weeks
or
the
appropriate
sign
off
from
from
members.
So
we
I
think
we.
We
need
to
kind
of
just
kick
off
that
process
as
soon
as
possible.
If
we
want
to
be
like
chartered
and
and
have
consensus
around
what
that
means
and
I
think
the
act
of
creating
that
scope.
C
So
and
one
thing
that
we
also
changed
this
week
for
those
tuning
in
is
that
where
we
took
over
today's
regular
CPC
stands
to
and
talked
specifically
about
the
code
of
conduct,
and
we
Joe
and
I
were
talking
last
week
about
how
we'd
love
to
kind
of
convert
some
of
our
and
CPC
meetings
into
working
sessions.
I
would
also
love
to
see
next
week
us
take
more
time
to
dive
in
during
CPC
meeting
hours
and
I.
Don't
know,
maybe
that's
it
should.
C
G
B
And
I
don't
think,
there's
anything
urgent
that
we
can't
you
know
just
maybe
ping
and
slack
for
folks
as
a
reminder
for
folks
to
look
at
the
issue
and
whatnot.
You
know:
I
have
an
update
so
regular
member
requirements
and
things
like
that,
but
I'd
love
to
get
over
the
finish
line,
but
I
don't
think
it
requires
a
meeting.
Perhaps
we
do
a
meeting
next
week
use
this
time
or
you
know
our
CPC
time
to
work
on
this
next.
C
I
know
that
the
folks
who
care
about
this
are
also
very
busy
and
and
have
other
irons
in
the
fire.
So
to
that
end,
I
I'm
game
to
find
additional
meeting
times,
I
think
that's
important
and
to
get
work
done,
but
also
it
we.
C
There's
a
lot
of
priorities
that
this
group
has
right
and-
and
my
my
personal
concern
is
that
if
we
care,
you
know
equally
about
everything
that
we
don't
make
as
much
progress
on
any
one
thing
that
may
might
want
to
make.
So.
My
my
and
and
thank
you
all
very
much
for
agreeing
to
focus
on
this
particular
issue
for
this
meeting,
and
so
we
can
maybe
really
get
a
lot
of
great
traction
on
it
and
get
it,
get
it
going
in
a
in
a
productive,
fluid
way,
and
then
we
can
take
on
something
else.
G
Yeah
I
mean
I
think
if
it's
a
long-term
working
group,
it's
probably
gonna,
have
its
own
meeting
time.
Eventually
right
like
doing
some
folk,
you
know
folk
saying
you
want
it.
We
want
to
focus
on
it
for
the
short
term,
so
we'll
take
some
CPC
meetings
make
sense,
but
it's
like
otherwise
it's.
If
it's
not
going
to
ever
have
its
own
entity.
Maybe
it
doesn't
need
meetings
but
like
it
needs
its
own
collaboration
path
or
space
yeah
space
or
whatever
yeah.
A
Yeah,
what
one
argument
very
much
in
support
of
what
jory
said
earlier
in
terms
of
making
this
super
super
simple.
If
it's
maybe
a
bit
more
complex
than
it
needs
to
be,
it
decreases
the
need
to
have
continuing
meetings
and
set
up
a
thing
where
you
know
there's
constant
discussion
about
refining
process.
If
the
process
itself
is
simple
to
begin
with-
and
this
can
be
very
helpful
in
terms
of
keeping
people
engaged
long
term
is
not
just
drop
that
in
there
that's
learning
from
some
other
projects
who
have
worked
done.
G
So
one
thing
I
think
is
like
we
should
probably
for
next
meeting.
If
we're
gonna
do
that
choose
some
smaller
topic,
we
want
to
try
and
close
out
on
right
cuz.
We
just
spent
the
whole
meeting
talking
about
the
whole
thing.
I,
don't
think.
We've
decided
anything
so
I
think
if
we
just
have
an
you
know
the
whole
scope,
we're
gonna
end
up
the
same
way.
So
it's
like.
What's
the
thing
we
should
resolve
next
time
would
be
my
question.
C
I
also
suggest,
and
an
alternative
or
slash
in
addition
to
because
hopefully
the
Charter
is
super
clear
and
the
way
we
want
projects
to
consume
our
COC
documents
that
that's
one,
that's
very
live
and
it's
varied
I
think
I
may
even
have
and
on
PR
number
515
I
think
I
tried
to
break
that
down
a
little
bit.
It
would
be
great
to
get
that
super
clear,
so
I
can
just
go
open,
PRS
and
say:
oh
here's,
how
we
do
it
now
and
they
go
okay.
Great!
Thank
you.
You
know
things
been.
B
G
G
J
J
J
J
G
C
C
G
G
G
G
D
G
G
B
C
So
one
of
the
things
that
I
had
had
you
know
suggested,
but
my
Michael
and
others
made
a
good
point
for
not
doing
it
is
that
this
group
should
also
handle
reports,
because,
frankly,
we
don't
really
get
very
many
of
them,
and
it's
may
be
a
good
idea
to
dog
food
a
little
bit
and
that,
but
that's
not
necessarily
the
right
thing
to
do,
because
some
people
aren't
super
comfortable.
They
want
to
be
involved
in
the
policy
stuff,
but
maybe
not
involved
in
the
enforcement.
And
you
know
the
access
to
private
information
is
a
concern.
C
G
C
Then
we
necessarily
have
people
who
care
about
a
given
issue
like
the
COC
right,
and
we
tend
to
be
slower
because
we're
looking
for
more
info
input
from
a
group
of
people
who
may
not
necessarily
and
add
more
decision-making
from
a
group
of
people
who
may
not
really
have
a
strong
opinion
to
make
that
so
where
the
group
has
the
ability
to
be
delegated
decisions
about
its
recommendations.
The
eg
like
if
the
group
were
to
say
the
way
that
we
want
projects
to
consume.
C
The
code
of
conduct
is
to
put
in
their
code
of
conduct
file
a
simple,
a
single
line
that
says
this
project
adheres
the
open,
JSF
foundation
code
of
conduct,
links
to
code
of
conduct
like
yes,
that
that
could
be
we
could.
It
would
be
great
if
it
was
clear
that
the
the
group
could
could
do
that
and
then
go
about
making
sure
that
it
was
executed.
I
think
Mike.
You.
F
F
There's
the
process
of
educating
all
team
members
about
the
code
of
conduct
and
then
there's
like
the
process
of
communicating
that
we
have
a
code
of
conduct
for
the
projects
and
maybe
there's
other
sub
processes
but
like
those
are
kind
of
the
four
that
seems
to
you
know
at
least
adds
more
detail
than
saying
we'll
just
cover
all
the
processes.
Code
of
conduct,
kind
of
yeah.