►
From YouTube: UCF TAC meeting 2022 02 24
Description
UCF TAC meeting 2022 02 24
To learn more about critical open source JavaScript projects like Appium, Dojo, jQuery, Node.js, and webpack, and 27 more checkout The OpenJS Foundation: https://openjsf.org/
A
A
B
C
All
right,
I
think
I
think
we
can
start
now.
Thank
you
for
coming
for
today's
hack
meeting.
We
will
be
discussing
the
proposal
to
merge
with
march
ucfs
with
open
JS
foundation,
and
we
also
have
a
our
program
manager
Brian
here
to
help
us
answer
any
questions
that
the
project
piece
might
have.
C
So
at
a
glance.
I
think
we
talked
about
this
last
time.
The
overview
of
opengs
foundation,
they're
a
standalone
Foundation
managed
by
the
Linux
Foundation.
They
are
governed
by
the
board
of
directors
and
they
have
their
own
Tech
group
called
CPC
class
project
Council
and
they
are
currently
hosting
of
38
open
source
projects
in
the
JavaScript
ecosystem,
including
node.js,
electron,
jQuery,
amp
and
many
others
also
at
webpack.
C
So
this
is
the
slides
I
borrow
from
Brian's
for
a
meeting.
How
do
foundations
merge?
C
It
can
be
a
pretty
straightforward
process
when
two
government
board
and
the
technical
body
agree
in
principle
and
concept
is
relevant.
Numbers
and
project
leads.
C
We,
the
technical
projects,
agree
on
the
path
into
the
recipients,
project
structure,
the
foundation
members
have
option
to
join
the
recipients.
In
this
case,
openjs
Foundation
was
good
for
product
dues
and
the
boards
flow
to
proceed
and
merger
is
announced
and
the
assets
are
transferred
and
the
projects
that
the
UCA
posts
will
transition
into
the
project.
Acceptance
cycle
into
the
opengs
foundation.
C
So
for
us
for
the
attack,
since
opengs
will
have
its
own
governing
board,
and
projects
are
managed
by
the
course
project.
Council,
the
UCF
us
can
create
its
own
collaboration
space
under
the
openjs.
Our
existing
tag
member
can
be
poured
over
on
the
Atwell
basis
to
govern
the
collaboration
space,
and
the
UCF
current
members
will
become,
can
will
have
the
option
to
also
to
become
opengs
members
with
one
year's
membership.
C
One-Year
membership
covered
and
open
since
opengs
does
not
require
Linux,
Foundation
memberships.
So
only
the
UCF
members
who
trustworld
can
transfer
over
to
opengs
Foundation
members
only
need
to
pay
for
the
opengs
foundation.
Member
Steve.
C
This
is
the
proposal
to
transfer
attack
to
cross
project,
console
the
CPC.
What
is
established
an
open,
visualization,
working
group
or
collaboration
space
for
our
Tech.
This
GL
Kepler
maps
in
will
have
one
year
to
go
through
the
also
for
my
blue
will
have
one
year
to
go
through
the
CPC
project,
application
process
and
the
project
I
don't
go
through.
The
process
will
become
Emirates,
just
something
that
openjs
CPC
lifecycle
defined.
So
here
are
the
three
main
life
cycles
for
projects
under
the
opengs
foundation.
C
C
So
this
is
just
a
brief
process
at
a
glance,
and
we
have
also
have
Point
here
to
answer
questions.
If
anybody
have.
D
E
E
It
may
be
worth
some
additional
discussion
about
whether
this
is
the
right
home
for
it
or
you
know.
If
there
are,
you
know
if
there
are
specific
components
that
are
being
used
in
maps
and
that
have
a
relationship
to
JavaScript.
That
relationship
is
strong
enough
to
be
able
to
make
the
case
here.
E
I
I
think
it's,
that's
that's
a
good
point.
I
think
it
is
probably
still
something
which
is
to
be
determined.
D
And
then
is
there
an
option
so,
like
we
I've
discussed
this
with
Sean
and
others,
but
in
terms
of
maps
and
like
what
what
our
goals
are
like?
Some
of
these
are
Under
development.
Some
are
not
under
developed
development,
but
we're
looking
for
honestly,
the
lowest
cost,
lowest
maintenance,
lowest
effort
way
to
keep
the
IP
like
open
and
public
and
well
understood,
but
with
Frank
with
frankly,
is
little
as
little
overhead
as
possible
on
both
cost
and
time
so
yeah
like
is
there.
D
E
So
that's
yeah.
That's
a
good
question.
This
delves
down
into
a
layer
of
complexity,
which
we
hadn't
really
hadn't,
really
discussed
in
the
governing
board
meeting
on
the
actual
mechanics
So.
Currently,
all
of
the
open
or
sorry
all
of
the
UCF
projects
are,
you
know
legally
underneath
the
LF
projects
entity
one
of
the
key
things
that
makes
this
particular
activity
that
we're
talking
about
doing
here
so
easy
is
that
we
would
actually
not
be
moving
them
out
from
underneath
the
LF
entity,
they're
actually
being
adopted
by
openjs.
E
What
allows
us
to
be
done
so
simply
I
I
can
go
back
and
have
a
conversation
with
our
legal
team
and
just
ask:
is
this
an
option
to
you
know
simply
if
we're
looking
for
the
lowest
lowest
friction
option,
is
it
possible
to
Simply
remain
as
far
as
where
the
assets
and
the
IP
and
all
that
stuff
is
held
in
this
case,
you
know
when
I'm
saying
IPM
I'm,
specifically
referring
to
the
maps
and
trademark
that
would
stay
with
the
Linux
Foundation
either
way
and
the
the
reason
for
that
is
that
there's
really
no
place
to
transfer
it,
and
you
know
one
of
the
value
propositions
of
having
a
non-profit
entity
host
these
different
assets
is
that
it's
very,
very
hard
to
transfer
them
out
like,
for
example,
they
can't
be
sold
or
whatever,
except
in
very,
very
limited
circumstances.
E
E
You
know
just
hosted
and
homed
with
with
minimal
input,
or
are
there
additional
structures,
fundraising,
structures,
budgeting
structures
that
are
built
around
them
in
the
context
of
one
of
these
foundations,
so
I
can
take
an
action
here
to
to
go
and
talk
to
a
legal
and
just
get
some
very
detailed
specifics
on
that
as
an
alternate
route,
you
know
that's
fairly
fairly
straightforward.
E
E
You
know
many
many
of
the
projects
which
have
reached
Emeritus
State
they're
there
simply
because
they've
followed
the
natural
life
cycle
of
you
know
of
involvement
where
there
were
a
lot
of
people
involved
early
on
and
then
over
time.
They
basically
said:
okay,
we're
either
going
to
move
into
Downstream
Forks
we're
going
to
move
into
different
projects.
We
want
to
make
sure
that
there
is
a
neutral
place
where
these
things
can
be
minded.
The
different
assets
which
are
left
over
can
be
minded,
so
you
know
from
that
perspective,
that's
another.
E
That's
another
option
and
the
final
thought
that
I
have
for
you
on
this.
There
is
some
overhead
involved
in
applying
for
at
large
status
in
the
openjs
foundation,
but
the
ongoing
burden
on
the
projects
is
very,
very
low
in
the
sense
that
there's
no
mandatory
requirement
for
participation
in
governance.
E
There's
no
mandatory,
really
no
mandatory
review
process
for
projects
which
are
in
the
at-large
state,
and
it's
meant
to
be
effectively
a
low
energy
place
to
so
the
projects
can
have
you
know,
they're
their
assets
neutrally
hosted
and
and
call
upon
resources
as
they
need
them.
E
F
I
think
it'd
be
worth
having
some
additional
discussion
for
with
Randy
and
with
with
the
map,
send
project
to
understand
where
that,
where
that's
currently
at
and
and
help
help
come
up
with,
you
know
away
away
a
path
forward
that,
like
works,
really
well
for
everybody
working
on
those
projects.
F
F
There's
definitely
been
forks
and
and
different
new
pockets
of
communities
that
have
kind
of
focused
around
new
projects
and
efforts
in
the
forks
rather
than
the
Upstream,
and
so
when,
when
I
was
looking
at
it
from
well
since
I'm
on
the
board,
I
was
trying
to
understand
where
the
projects
were
all
at
it
was.
It
seemed
like
there
was
a
there's,
an
open
chance
for
like
a
new
involvement
in
openjs
from
the
the
map.
Then
projects,
especially
the
forks,
apply
and
participate.
F
D
A
home
yeah
that
makes
sense,
yeah
and
just
to
explain
Maps,
then
sorry
not
to
make
this
an
absent
call,
but
just
to
explain
maps
and
the
map
send
repo
and
GitHub
voice
to
proprietary
company
repo,
where
we
would
have
like
operational
code
and
the
website
things
like
that,
and
we
did
all
development
not
not
really
in
Forks
but
I'm
sure
there
have
been
some
Forks,
but
all
the
all
the
development.
All
the
major
development
would
happen
in
individual
organizations
like
Valhalla
for
the
nav
engine,
tangram
Elias
for
the
search
engine.
D
All
of
the
most
of
these
are
still
under
some
kind
of
activity,
but
it's
with
like
a
number
of
different
companies
or
small
Contracting
shops
or
various
things
as
people
are
still
working
on
it.
So
that
just
explains
what
what's
happening
with
the
award
but,
like
you
know,
I'm
I'm
on
this
call.
But
you
don't
see
a
lot
of
other
people
on
this
call.
D
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
that
what's
going
to
happen,
is
I'll
have
to
like
take
this
to
like
people
who
are
still
active
in
this
and
kind
of
just
get
their
feedback
and
see
what
they
what
they
want
to
do.
My
impression
is:
they
want
to
do
as
little
as
possible
into
in
terms
of
like
overhead,
and
you
know,
they're
working
on
the
projects
but
like
they
probably
want
as
little
overhead
as
possible.
Basically,.
F
That
that
makes
total
sense,
I
think
what
I
yeah
I
guess.
The
root
of
my
question
is
like
what
are
the
pieces
that
I
should
be
paying
attention
to?
Like
you
know
what
are
the
collective
pieces
of
maps
and
at
the
at
the
moment
the
trademark
is
super
clear,
but
the
rest
of
it
is
less
clear
like
what
the
like
who
has
admin
privileges
on
the
GitHub
organizations.
I
have
no
idea
across
the
board
and
like
what
GitHub
organizations
are
there
and
what
are
their
connections
to
the
Linux
Foundation?
D
E
Yeah
I
think
that's,
you
know
just
kind
of
having
been
through
a
number
of
these
different
mergers.
I
think
the
key
thing
here
Randy
is
that
we
want
to
make
sure
that
that
everybody
is
on
board
with
what's
happening
and
that
that
nobody's
being
forced
through
a
process
they
don't
they're,
not
willing
to
go
through.
E
You
know
really.
The
way
that
we
have
proposed
this
to
the
openjs
foundation
is
equivalent
of
the
attack.
The
CPC
is
that
each
one
of
the
projects
would
go
through
the
typical
new
project
lifecycle
process,
which
is
where
you
know
existing
projects
can
apply
to
join
the
openjs
foundation
and
we'd.
E
Have
each
one
of
these
projects
go
through
individually
versus
trying
to
pack
everybody
in
together
simply
simply
to
be
to
be
absolutely
sure
that
everyone
who's
participating,
is
being
treated
individually
and
that
every
project
is
being
treated
appropriately
to
you
know
to
what
their
goals
and
Ambitions
are.
E
The
goal
is
not
to
sign
the
project
up
for
a
bunch
of
work.
It
didn't
ask
for
or
obligations
that
it
doesn't.
You
know
that
wouldn't
result
in
benefits
that
make
it
worth
it
to
go
through
this
obligation.
F
F
C
I
think
we
have
all
the
project
leads
in
this
meeting
today.
Chris
me
xiaoji,
Randy
and
IB
and
Ilya
so
I
think
we're
all
here,
maybe
Brian.
As
you
know,
all
the
project
leads.
What
can
you
explain
just
what
is
the
expected
Next
Step
besides
go
you
know,
can
you
also
tell
me
us
a
little
bit
more
about
the
application
process.
E
Yes,
absolutely
so,
we've
been
having
some
conversations
on
the
openjs
side
as
well.
One
of
the
requests
that
they
had
was
to
have
the
project
leads
come
into
one
of
the
Cross
project,
Council
meetings
which
they
do
every
other
week
and
basically
just
talk
a
little
bit
through
about
you
know
the
what
are
the?
What
are
the
details
of
the
project?
You
know
who's
contributing
who's
using
what's
the
overall
trajectory
of
the
project,
what
are
some
of
the
success
stories?
You
know
effectively.
E
I
think,
there's,
there's
very
little
cross-pollination
between
the
folks
who
are
currently
involved
in
the
the
governing
body
of
the
openjs
foundation
and
the
UCF,
and
so
really,
you
know
just
kind
of
getting
to
know
you
at
a
project
level
from
there.
One
of
the
other
requests
from
the
CPC
was
that
you
know
projects
which,
which
are
pretty
certain
they're
ready
to
come
over,
that
they
get
started
on
at
least
an
early
version
of
the
application
new
project
application
which
I
can
drop
into
the
chat
here.
E
I'll
drop
in
the
project
progression
instructions,
and
this
is
basically
meant
to
be
a
a
process
which
you
know
why.
It
it
builds
progressively
upon
itself,
so
your
projects,
which
are
applying
to
you
know
for
the
at-large,
the
at-large
category,
there's
a
certain
amount
of
information,
they're
looking
for
part
of
its
biographical
information
like
who's
who
in
the
project
and
where
would
we
find
your
your
social
media,
handles
where
your
code
repositories
that
sort
of
thing
some
of
these
are
also
related
to
governance?
E
You
know:
do
you
commit
to
adopting
the
you
know,
code
of
conduct?
Do
you
commit
to
these
various
different
processes?
And
things
like
that
which
you
know
none
of
them
are-
are
out
of
keeping
with
what
you
would
find
in
a
typical
Linux
Foundation
open
source
project.
E
E
I'm
gonna
grab
the
link
to
the
template
itself.
I
put
in
the
Project
Life
Cycle
is.
F
And
then
I
also
remember
when
we
were
at
the
in
the
board
meeting.
You
had
also
mentioned
there's
kind
of
an
order
of
operations
in
the
steps
Beyond
this
that
I
felt
were
maybe
important
to
reiterate
here
around
you
know,
nothing
gets
dissolved
until
there's
clear
indication
that
it's
moving
forward,
so
that
there's
like
there's
no
chance
that
the
project
any
project
would
lose
the
existing
kind
of
structure
that
we
have
unless
it
has
a
clear
indication
that
it's
going
to
move
forward
in
a
new
way
is.
E
That
right,
that's
that's
a
great
Point
Chris,
yes,
so
yeah,
so
I
I
can
walk
through
this.
So
there
is,
you
know,
looking
at
the
order
of
operations
going
forward.
They're
basically
are
a
few
things.
I'll
build
on
based
upon
what
Sean
had
said
earlier,
which,
if
Sean,
that
was
an
excellent
overview.
You
really
you
hit
everything
right
on
the
money
there.
E
Basically,
the
there
are
five
steps
ahead
of
us,
so
one
of
them
is
that
the
first
one
after
we've
gone
through
this
initial
step
of
going
and
talking
to
the
CPC
is
that
the
CPC
would
create,
what's
called
a
collaboration
space.
This
is
in
a
lot
of
groups.
E
They
would
call
this
a
working
group
or
or
something
along
those
lines,
and
it
basically
is
just
a
it's
meant
to
be
a
logical
grouping
of
people
who
are
interested
in
a
certain
topic,
whether
it's
security
or
repositories-
or
you
know
in
this
case
what
the
tech
is
doing
here
for
UCF.
E
So
basically,
this
creates
a
a
container
where
you
know,
as
the
UCF
as
the
TAC
decides,
to
move
move
operations
over
into
to
a
project
Foundation.
Basically,
it
would
stop
being
the
UCF
Tack
and
start
being
the
openjs.
You
know
open
visualization
collaboration,
space
or
geospatial.
You
know
whatever
you
know,
whatever,
whatever
you
would
want
to
call
yourselves,
you
basically
move
operations
up
there.
So
that's
the
second
step.
The
third
step
is
that
the.
F
E
E
The
third
step,
once
this
has
been
you
know
accomplished
once
we've
got
the
the
the
people
moved
over,
the
UCF
governing
board
would
effectively
vote
to
dissolve
itself
and
then
you
know
transfer
any
any
remaining
funding
over
to
openjs
Foundation
at
the.
At
the
same
time,
the
openjs
foundation
board
would
vote
to
receive
the
UCF
members
as
no
cost
silver
members
for
a
period
of
12
months
and
then
the
fifth
one
is
the
UCF
projects.
E
We
go
through
the
actual
application
process
to
become
formal,
openjs,
Foundation
members
or
if
it
looks
like
that's,
not
going
to
work
out,
you
know
so
to
Randy
to
your
point
earlier
figuring
out
what
the
what
the
alternate
would
be.
It's
a
very
straightforward
process
when
you
actually
get
through
it.
E
F
I
think
I
think
that
sounds
pretty
good.
It's
the
I
mean
from
what
we've
discussed
today
and
what
we've
discussed
in
the
past.
It
seems
the
only
thing
we
want
to
make
sure
is
that,
before
things
get
dissolved,
everybody
has
a
clear
idea
of
where
they're
going
to
be
and
that
there's
no
chance
for
anything
to
to
be
dropped.
F
I
think
that
that's
like
a
a
pretty
universally
aligned
on
part
of
all
this,
both
on
both
sides,
I
can't
imagine
anyone
at
openjs
wanting
something
to
be
lost
through
this
process
and
I
can't
imagine
anybody
on
UCF
wanting
that
either,
especially
since
we're
all
really
under
the
Linux
Foundation
umbrella,
so
I
I
don't
see
how
that's
going
to
happen,
but
that's
the
that's.
The
beat
that
I'll
be
trying
to
keep
a
pulse
on
through
this
okay.
That.
E
That
sounds
good
I
mean
my
takeaway
from
this
from
having
spoken,
really
to
all
all
four
different
governing
entities
involved
here.
My
take
has
been
the
same
that
there's
really
nobody
who
wants
this
to
fall
apart
right,
the
you
know,
the
UCF
governing
board
there's
been
a
very
strong
voice
of
support
on
this,
mainly
from
the
efficiency
aspect.
E
You
know
the
reason
for
doing
this
in
the
first
place
is
it
allows
the
projects
to
be
supported
much
more
effectively
because
they're
economies
of
scale
they
come
from
being
with
a
larger
organization,
the
openjs
foundation
governing
board.
They
are
absolutely
you
know,
absolutely
interested
in
this
as
well
the
openjs
foundation
CPC.
They
have
open
questions
about.
You
know
who
exactly?
Are
these
projects
and
who's
involved
and
what's
their,
what
are
their
goals
and
Ambitions
and
what's
their
their
stage
in
in
adoption?
E
But
you
know
no
strong
objections,
so
they
want
to
get
the
questions
answered.
Obviously,
but
you
know
nobody
is
standing
in
the
way
and
then
you
know
just
being
on
this
call
and
kind
of
hearing
hearing
some
of
the
thoughts
from
some
of
the
maintainers.
It
sounds
like
there's
reasonable
support
as
well.
Thank
you,
I
think.
The
main
thing
here
on
my
side,
I've,
been
through
some
fairly
large
mergers.
I
helped
do
the
JS
foundation
and
node.js
merger.
E
This
is
a
a
fairly
straightforward
process
and
our
goal
in
doing
this
is
to
lean
on
those
other
fairly
complicated
ones,
to
know
what
we
don't
want
to
do.
So
the
goal
really
is
to
make
this
as
smooth
and
straightforward
as
possible,
with
minimal
disruption
of
the
technical
communities
and
then,
in
the
end,
be
able
to
achieve
these
economies
of
scale.
So
you
can
actually
start
making
some
plans
and
you
know,
potentially
make
use
of
the
larger
scale
of
being
in
a
larger
Foundation
foreign.
C
Let's
do
a
temperature
check
here,
you
know
it
shouts
the
Elia
Chris
and
Chris
Chris
and
I
already
talked
since
we're
pretty
on
board
with
this
move,
but
I
want
to
hear
from
which
GL
format
blue
and
what
what
their
thoughts
on
this.
G
G
What
what
are
the
benefits
for
us
like?
What?
What
can
we
tell
our
contributors
or
potential
sponsors
about
this
change?.
E
That's
really
good
question,
so
there
are
a
couple
of
things
that
I
would
that
I'd
suggest
are
are
some
of
the
benefits
of
this
one
of
them
you're,
looking
at
it
very
practically
from
the
governing
board
perspective
from
the
foundation
perspective
there
there
is
a
minimum
effective
size
for
foundations
like
this,
and
the
reason
there's
a
minimum
effective
size
is
that
you
know
up
to
a
certain
point.
A
good
portion
of
the
funding
goes
into
just
you
know,
sustaining
the
foundation
itself.
E
H
Let
me
let
me
jump
in
so
I
think
you
know,
you
know,
based
on
the
question
I
think,
but
we.
What
we
really
want
to
do
you
know,
is
to
make
this
into
a
very
positive
message,
and
so
the
truth
of
it
is,
of
course,
that
they
started
because
UCF
wasn't
really
making
sense
right.
They
were
just
not
enough
critical,
mass
and
so
on.
H
So
in
some
sense
you
know,
okay,
UCF
has
failed,
and
now
we
you
know
we
we
with
our
tail
between
our
legs,
we
kind
of
moved
to
another
Foundation
like
that's
the
bad
story
that
we
don't
want
to
give
I.
Think
UCF
has
been
an
incredible
home
for
these
Frameworks,
but
now
they've
grown.
You
know
and
I
mean
look
at
the
the
Frameworks
that
we're
joining
right.
There
are
the
Frameworks
that
power,
the
entire
I
mean
it's
node.js
and
and-
and
you
know
that
every
single
JavaScript
programmer
uses.
H
So
you
know
we're
kind
of
entering
a
Hall
of
Fame
of
of
JavaScript
projects
and
so
I.
H
Can
easily
make
the
case
you
know
that
this
these
Frameworks
are
now
taking
the
next
level,
and
you
know
just
going
into
kind
of
really
a
mainstream
foundation
and
use
cases
are
also
starting
to
expand
like
into
you
know,
biology
and
other
areas
for
deck
GL.
So
you
know
it's
kind
of
grown
Beyond.
E
Yeah
I
I
think
there's
some
others
that
go
along
with
that
as
well,
and
those
are
those
are
really
good
points.
Yeah
I
mean
one
of
them.
You
have
to
be
a
certain
size
to
be
able
to
run
things
like
events,
so
you
know,
we've
got
a
fairly
substantial
event
coming
up
later
on
this
year,
openjs
world,
where
there
are
open
spaces
for
projects
to
be
able
to
have
collab
summons,
for
example.
E
These
are
things
which
they
they
just
unfortunately
don't
happen
unless
there's
critical
mass
and
so
getting
those
economies
of
scale
from
a
large,
larger
Foundation,
that's
compatible
technology.
Wise
really
is
a
fairly
strong
benefit
for
the
projects
themselves.
H
Yeah
and
I
mean
it's
also
easier
to
join
it.
It
only
requires
you
know
the
openjs
foundation.
A
number
of
the
big
companies
that
are
using
this
are
already
members
of
their.
You
know,
so.
I
think
we
can
make
a
long
laundry
list
of
reasons
why
this
made
a
lot
of
sense
and
why
you
know,
because
in
the
end
you
want
to
feel
I
mean
the
message
that
I
want
to
give
to
the
community
is
that
you
know
vsgl
and
and
and
friends
or
it's
get,
are
getting
stronger
right
and
this
is
taking
them.
H
H
To
you
is
that
kind
of
the
angle
you
were
looking
for.
H
Javier
has
also
promised
in
one
of
the
board
meetings
that
he
would
help
with
this
messaging
they're,
very
good
at
putting
a
positive
speed
limit
with
everything.
So
we
kind
of
have
a
series
of
blog
posts
and
put
some
nice
also
note
in
the
headers
of
our
projects
and
so
on.
F
Yeah
for
me,
and
for
for
Joby,
the
the
the
benefits
of
moving
to
openjs
is
to
to
see
these
projects
continue
to
have
like
a
really
great
home
and
to
continue
to
grow,
get
involved
in
events
and
kind
of
be
backed
by
a
long,
very
well-financed
group
that
we
don't
really
have
to
be
so
concerned
about
its
ability
to
keep
the
lights
on
every
year.
F
You
know
we
we
don't
have
a
budget
issue
anymore
after
after
you
know,
Joby
joined
and
our
member
other
memberships,
renewed,
I,
think
it
when,
when
we
joined
it
kind
of
and
I
kind
of
started
going
to
the
meetings,
a
lot
of
the
conversations
were
kind
of
focused
on
just.
How
do
we
keep
the
lights
on
rather
than
what
I
think
we
really
want
to
all
be
talking
about,
which
is
how
do
we
grow
and
focus
our
projects
in
ways
that
are
going
to?
F
You
know,
prepare
us
for
really
exciting
new
technology
like
web
GPU,
or
you
know,
like
I'd
much
rather
be
talking
about
how
how
I
want
to
develop
Hubble
GL.
F
Further
and
you
know,
do
desktop
rendering
and
all
kinds
of
you
know
great
technical
stuff,
but
where,
where
we
were
kind
of
set
up
and
and
spending
our
time,
it
seemed
like
it
seemed
like
the
transition
is
going
to
allow
us
to
really
be
focused
a
lot
more
on
what
we
all
want
to
be
working
on,
and
that's
probably,
the
part
I'm
most
excited
about,
moving
to
openjs
and
and
from
what
it
sounds
like
it's,
a
pretty
cool
opportunity,
they're
very
open,
Open
Arms
to
to
allowing
us
to
carve
out
a
space
within
their
within
their
Community
to
build
a
working
group,
the
first
one.
F
It
sounds
like
of
this
kind
where
it's
going
to
be.
You
know,
visualization
focused
and
not
just
kind
of
developer
tools.
Focus
like
most
of
openjs
projects
are
not
all
of
them.
You
know
they're
still,
they're
still
like
jQuery
and
other
view
manager,
Style
projects
within
open,
JS,
but
I.
Think
it's
like
exciting
in
both
sides
to
bring
in
all
this
expertise
and
exciting
project
progress
that
we've
been
making
in
deck
gloves.
F
A
C
Okay
and
I
think
we
Let's
see
we
probably
have
got
some
questions
and
answered
I.
Think
the
last
one
I
want
to
just
ask
is
Elia.
Are
you
still
around.
C
So,
what's
your
thoughts
on
this.
B
Yes,
then
it
sounds
pretty
exciting.
Yeah
I
think
I
mean.
B
C
Yeah
I
think
the
I
want
to
Echo
what
Chris
just
said.
You
know
we
joined
the
USF
War
because
we
want
to
you
know,
keep
our
projects
on
and
really
all
of
us
really
just
wanted
to
be
intact.
We
just
want
to
talk
about
project.
We
don't
want
to
talk
about
how
to
run
a
foundation.
So
you
know,
moving
to
opengs
will
give
us
the
opportunity
to
just
focus.
You
know,
have
the
opengs
board
figure
out
how
to
run
the
foundation,
and
we
can
just
you
know,
have
a
home
for
our
project.
C
B
C
Brian
I
think
a
lot
of
people
are
concerned.
I
mean
already
mentioned
about
going
through
this
paperwork.
I
mean
we
definitely
already
did
this
paperwork
when
we
first,
you
know
invite
this
project
into
UCF.
Can
we
just
you
know,
I
mean
I'm
happy
to
help
just
copy
paste,
some
content
to
as
a
start
and
then
send
it?
Do
we
still
have
those
Cloud
forms
and
documents
on
our
GitHub
right.
E
G
I
have
a
silly
question,
so
a
lot
of
our
files
still
have
the
header
from
The
Uber
times
like
copyright,
Uber,
plus
a
big
chunk
of
the
license
legally.
Do
we
need
to
purge
those.
E
No,
so
actually,
this
is
a
this
is
totally
unrelated
to
to
changing
changing
organizations,
but
I'm
glad
you
brought
this
up.
So
the
general
rule
is
that
if
somebody
has
put
their
copyright
notice
at
the
top
of
a
file,
unless
you
have
the,
unless
you
have
ownership
in
that
copyright,
you
can't
change
it,
and
this
goes
back
to
the
attribution
requirements
in
the
open
source
licenses.
E
So
if
it
says
copyright
Uber
then
leave
copyright
Uber
generally
speaking
and
there's
a
blog
post
I
can
send
put
in
the
chat
here
that
has
this
guidance.
Generally
speaking,
the
Linux
Foundation
recommends
adding
generic
copyright
notices
to
the
top
of
the
files,
something
along
the
lines
of
you
know:
copyright
vis-gl
contributors
no
year,
so
you
don't
have
to
maintain
the
the
actual
year
field
and
then
also
something
which
is
generic,
which
just
covers
everybody
who's,
a
contributor
to
that
particular
project.
E
The
reason
that
we
recommend,
that
is,
that,
there's
no
specific
requirement
you
have
to
include
a
copyright
statement
in
the
file,
because
it
has
you
know
no
bearing
on
who
actually
holds
the
copyright.
It's
simply
a
signal,
a
courtesy
signal
of
you
know
who's
who's,
claiming
that
they
have
this.
Have
this
well
copyright.
E
G
That
helps
a
lot
we're
in
the
awkward
place
where
contributors
would
just
copy
and
paste
an
existing
file
when
they
create
a
new
one
and
we're
we're
caught
in
the
awkward
conversation
of.
Let's
remove
that
header.
E
Yeah
yeah,
so
that
and
that's
it,
that's
a
good
question
and
it's
one
where
there's
a
lot
of
confusion.
So
it's
easiest
just
to
go
with
a
generic
header
in
that
generic
header
can
go
alongside
specific
headers
like
if
copyright
Uber
is
part
of
that
file,
and
then
you
also
underneath
that
you
add,
you
know
copyright.
F
E
For
licenses,
we
have
some
different
different
recommendation
on
that
one
one
of
the
things
which
we
suggest
if
it's
just
using
a
standard
open
source
license.
E
H
That's
what
I
would
recommend
yeah
just
leave
one
line
for
each
copyright.
That's
in
there.
So
just
you
know,
if
Uber
has
it's
copyright,
then
we
just
keep
one
command
line:
copyright
Uber,
we
can
add
a
copyright
to
SGL
contributors
and
we
can.
We
can
also
specify
this
is
under
MIT
license
or
using
some
proper
identifier,
but
you
know
having
like
the
entire
first
screen,
just
containing
your
licenses,
it's
pretty
ugly,
so
it
doesn't
add
any
value.
E
Uglier
I
expected
I
just
dropped
in
two
links,
so
the
first
one
is
a
blog
post
that
came
from
Linux
Foundation
attorney,
which
basically
says
exactly
what
I
just
said
and
then
the
second
one
is
a
link
off
to
spdx
IDs,
definitely
recommended
and
much
cleaner
and
human
and
machine
readable.
Also,
oh.
C
All
right,
if
there
is
no
other
questions,
we
can
just
end
the
meeting
today
and
if
you
have
any
follow-ups,
please
email
me
and
or
oh
it's
positive.
C
E
My
pleasure
I'm
happy
to
answer
any
questions
that
anybody
has
Randy
I
will
follow
up
here
and
we'll
figure
out
how
to
answer
your
questions
as
well.
E
Thanks
I
do
want
to
say.
Thank
you,
though,
to
everybody
for
your
your
help
and
advocacy
on
this.
You
know
the
governing
board's
been
talking
about
this
for
a
while.
So
this
has
just
been.
This
has
been
a
really
straightforward
and
easy
process.
I'll
be
I'll,
be
at
a
slightly
slow
one,
but
that's
mainly
because
we
don't
want
to
take
anybody
by
surprise
and
don't
want
anybody
to
feel
like
they're
being
brought
along
against
their
will
so
appreciate
everybody's
support
through
this
process.