►
From YouTube: OpenJS Foundation Standards WG Meeting - May 16, 2023
Description
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
All
right
welcome
everyone,
openjs
Foundation
standards.
Working
group
today
is
Tuesday
May
16th
we're
all
a
lot
of
us
are
coming
up
off
of
a
great
week
in
Vancouver.
Our
standards
was
a
very
popular
Topic
in
sessions
and
in
the
hallways,
so
I
think
we
can
jump
right
in
jory's
out
today.
So
I'll
I'll
run
the
agenda
with
all
your
support.
A
Okay,
first
up
we
have
issue
233
I,
don't
see
as
Ethan
joined
the
call.
B
D
A
A
E
I'm
happy
to
do
that,
so
this
is
a
bit
of
a
special
election,
because
a
significant
number
of
candidates
for
this
election
were
actually
elected
like
six
months
ago
and
had
to
rerun
for
some
form
of
like
process
reason
that,
frankly,
I
have
I
have
forgotten
like
there
was
a
thing
and
that
thing
happened
and
hence
like
so
essentially
it's
very
much
sort
of
like
reconfirming
kind
of
like
the
people
that
were
elected
six
months
ago.
E
So
expectations
are,
you
know
unless
they
did
something
terrible,
it's
pretty
much
going
to
be
the
same
people
though
the
turn.
You
know
the
number
of
members
that
actually
vote
is
really
low
in
general,
and
so
you
know,
depending
on
who
actually
decides
to
vote.
This
might
change
things.
A
little
right,
I
haven't
looked
at
the
list
of
candidates,
but
I
think
we
should
always
sort
of
I
mean.
Obviously
it
would
be
great
if
we
voted
right
and
I
don't
know.
E
I
actually
haven't
thought
about
whether
there
was
a
specific
position
that
openjs
should
have
or
folks
that
we
wanted
to
actually
push
so
I.
Don't
know
if,
like
folks
have
thoughts,
I
mean
Michael
knows
all
of
these
people.
Yeah.
C
There's
there's
been
a
bit
of
of
discussion,
I
think
yeah,
this
others
nine
candidates
for
six
seats,
not
all
the
people
elected,
are
re-running.
For
instance,
Charles
Neville
is
not
running
this
time,
but
yes,
it's
to
a
large
extent
a
recap
of
the
previous
election,
so
it
which,
by
the
way,
was
a
special
election
because
about
half
the
the
or
four
what
four
members
of
the
ab
got
elected
to
the
board
of
directors.
So.
E
C
Yeah
it's
yeah
anyway,
there's
been
some
discussion,
I
think
it's
yeah
I,
don't
think.
There's
a
I
think
Jory
will
eventually
come
back
and
say
Here's
her
recommended
ranking
and-
and
we
will
have
a
chance
to
to
confirm
or
push
back
on
that
but
yeah.
It's
not
I,
don't
think,
there's
a
whole
lot
of
drama
here.
There's.
C
F
I
I
was
trying
to
break
in
and
say
it's
It's
tricky,
because
this
uses
STV
and
as
you
say,
not
a
lot
of
people
show
up
there's
a
lot
of
seats.
F
F
There
are
a
lot
of
incumbents
here
generally,
the
incumbents
are
doing
a
pretty
good
job,
so
Place
most
of
them
in
at
least
the
top
six.
You
know,
yeah
we've
had
I
had
a
little
bit
of
discussion.
I
think
we'll
just
probably
carry
on
discussions
and
then
make
a
recommendation.
F
The
Advisory
Board
they
mostly
they're
in
charge
of
the
process,
which
is
like
sort
of
the
Constitution
of
the
w3c
like
how
it
works
in
every
facet.
F
F
C
Great
yeah,
probably
the
biggest
thing
there
were
so
w3c
so
for
w2z's,
whole
history,
Tim
berners,
leave
the
you
know,
inventor
of
HTTP
and
HTML
and
URL
URLs
was
the
nominal
benevolent
dictator
and
he's
pretty
he's
more
or
less
officially
stepped
away.
Now,
and
but
he
was
the
person
they
went
to
to
to
resolve
the
gnarliest
disputes.
I
mean
they
tried
to
operate
by
consensus.
But
when
you
know
a
few
members,
especially
you
know
critical
members
digging
their
heels
on
something
in
what
they
call
formally
object.
C
Tim
has
traditionally
been
the
the
you
know:
jury,
judge
of
Last,
Resort,
he's
gone
and
they're
trying
to
Define
the
they're
trying
to
write
down
the
values,
The
Guiding
principles
that
that
should
you
know,
be
used
in
dispute
resolution
and
that's
an
extremely
slow
process,
but
The
Advisory
Board
is
driving.
It.
C
They
have
the
power
they're
on
the
they
are
half
of
the.
What
do
you
call
it?
The
dispute
resolution
councils
formal
objection
councils,
so
they
are
yeah
in
principle.
C
You
know
there's
like
20,
some
odd
people
who
are
who
are
eligible
for
these
councils
and
the
a
b
are
among
them
so
anyway,
but
going
forward
it's
more
more.
Most
of
their
traditional
power
has
been
to
just
try
to
give
the
the
team.
You
know
some
reality.
Checks
and
the
board
of
directors
now
has
that
formal
responsibility
and
they're
stepping
up
to
it.
So
it's.
F
F
I
was
I
was
trying
to
say
they
don't
have
any
power
historically.
Historically,
their
job
is
to
advise
the
AC,
and
so
even
when
they
make
changes
to
the
process
or
whatever
it's
the
AC.
That
has
to
ratify
that
or
not
so
now,
Michael's
totally
right
that
with
all
the
changes,
it
is
a
lot
of
work
to
reimagine
that,
because
you,
you
probably
wouldn't
know
it,
but
the
process
document
had
the
word
director
like
a
quarter
of
a
million
times
like
it's
just
everywhere,
like
everywhere
in
the
process.
F
There's
a
and
you
probably
should
check
with
Tim
God
aspect
to
it,
and
now
there
isn't
the
director
that
anybody
trusts
the
way
that
they
would
trust
him
right
like.
Even
if
we
could
find
somebody
to
fill
the
director
role.
It's
it's
not
Tim
and
we
probably
don't
want
those
rules
to
apply
that
way.
So
means
figuring
out
things
like
these
councils,
which
does
actually
give
some
power
to
people
who
are
on
the
seats
in
a
way
and
those
people
are
elected
from
the
a
b
and
the
tag
which
is
kind
of
interesting.
F
A
Great
lots
of
changes
there
I
know
they're,
also
hiring
a
new
CEO
they've
been
reaching
out
to
folks
I
believe
the
deadline
was
last
week,
I
believe
if
you're
interested
I
could
send
anyone's
name
to
the
recruiter
or
others.
So
lots
of
changes
taking
place
all
right.
Yeah.
E
That
said,
I
do
think
you
know.
I
was
at
the
AC
meeting
last
week
and
although
there
are
lots
of
organizational
changes,
it
really
feels
that
the
organization
as
a
whole
is
essentially
regrouping
around
like
it's.
It's
a
prior
role
and
just
sort
of
like
figuring
out
things
to
continue
in
the
same
way.
E
So,
whereas
you
know
there
were
concerns
that
the
transition
I
mean
the
transition
was
kind
of
Rocky,
to
put
it
mildly,
but
I
think
those
those
considerations
are
mostly
be
behind
the
organization
at
this
point
and
I'm
expecting
so
sort
of,
like
the
you
know
next,
two
years
to
be
sort
of
like
consolidation
around
like
this
new
organization.
This
new
structure
and-
and
you
know
not
a
hell
of
a
lot
of
changes
outside.
A
All
right
so
next
on
the
agenda
is
issue:
2
3,
2,
31.
TPAC,
which
is
September
in
I.
Believe
it's
Sevilla
Spain!
Is
that
correct?
So
just
a
side
note,
you
may
have
all
seen
that
we,
the
program
committee,
decided
to
postpone
the
security
workshop
with
the
w3c
openjs,
open,
ssf
and
owasp.
We
met
yesterday
again
with
the
programming
committee
and
really
just
trying
to
figure
it
out.
We
thought
do
we
need
to
reschedule
to
September
in
Spain
with
TPAC
and
open
source,
Summit,
North,
America
or
Europe.
A
We
haven't
quite
landed
on
a
decision.
We
think
maybe
virtual,
maybe
a
way
to
go
hybrid,
so
we're
looking
at
sort
of
pros
and
cons
on
that.
A
Definitely
I
think
we
were
seeing
that
travel
budgets
are
pretty
tight
this
year
with
the
economic
downturn,
so
we're
trying
to
be
respectful
of
that.
So,
if
anyone
wants
to
participate,
they
can
we're
also
trying
to
get
a
little
more
crisp
on
what
we
want.
The
focus
of
the
workshops
to
be
to
really
energize
people,
maybe
even
curate
a
few
speakers
just
to
sort
of
spark
some
more
cfps.
We
didn't
have
as
many
as
we
had
hoped.
A
Okay,
so
jumping
in
to
the
TPAC
event
breakout
sessions.
A
A
E
E
Something
if
you're
interested
in
five
minutes
before
the
actual
breakout
session
is
the
deadline
in
general
I
mean
there's
lots
of
leeway.
If
you
have
a
good
topic
and
people
are
interested
earlier,
but
like
it
and
there's
no
I,
don't
think
there's
like
a
formal,
formal
thing.
Sometimes
there
is
okay
I.
A
A
All
right
now,
let
me
go
back
I'm
on
the
schedule,
so
I
end
up
on
the
wrong
issue.
Again,
let's
see
my
GitHub
is
being
squarely.
A
E
I,
don't
know
that
it
has,
because
it
wasn't
there
in
the
last
cold
and
I
think
it
wasn't
discussed.
D
E
So
The
OSI
is
the
open
source
initiative.
It's
a
non-profit
that
regroups
a
whole
like
a
large
number
of
other
non-profits
and
membership
organizations,
essentially
around
the
definition
of
Open
Source
licenses
and
the
process
of
reviewing
open
source
licenses
and
essentially
certifying
them
as
being
an
open
source
license
or
not,
which
is
a
a
delicious
process
that
happens
on
the
mailing
list.
That
has
a
terrible
reputation
for
it.
Just
in
case
you
wanted
to
actually
go,
have
a
look
but
outside
of
that.
E
It's
an
incredibly
important
organization,
and
it
has
over
the
course
of
the
last
couple
of
years-
are
strengthened
its
policy
arm
in
response
to
a
lot
of
upcoming
regulation,
both
in
the
EU
you've
probably
heard
about
the
CRA,
the
Cyber
resilience
act
that
could
potentially
very
badly
impact
the
usage
and
maintenance
and
the
production
of
Open
Source
in
Europe
and
similar
regulation.
E
That's
happening
in
the
US
right
now,
but
hopefully
that
I
mean
that's
at
least
right
now
or
looks
less
harmful
to
the
open
source
community
I
bumped
into
an
open
issue
on
the
standards
repository
where
Miles
was
saying:
hey,
I'm,
no
longer
sort
of
involved.
Here
and
I'm
stepping
down
for
my
OSI
role
and
that
was
still
open.
It
was
like
two
or
three
years
old
and
since
I
actually
spent
quite
a
significant
amount
of
time
on
these
open
source
definition
issues
partially.
E
For
my
some
of
the
Consulting
work
that
I
do
and
that
I
work
on
a
regular
basis
was
Folks
At,
The
OSI,
who
have
focused
on
this
I.
It
just
makes
sense
for
me
to
take
on
this.
You
know
like
do
this
through
on
the
foundation
of
the
foundation
once
that,
hence
offering
to
do
it
in
that
way.
So
that's
essentially
essentially
it's
a
liaison
role
was
the
OSI
and
I
think
it's
in
point
right
now,
because
of
the
potential
impact
of
the
CRA
and
I.
E
Think
that
other
interesting
aspect
is
that
to
positively
impact
legislation
in
the
EU,
a
thing
that
is
really
important
is
to
get
like
actual
European
citizens
who
would
be
impacted
by
legislation
and
who
are
able
to
say
hey,
wait
up
like
you
know,
my
whole
sort
of
like
life
would
be
upturned
by
this,
and
so
having
this
liaison
with
such
a
large
pool
of
maintainers
and
developers
that
openjsf
actually
has
could
actually
be
fairly
valuable
to
OSI,
who
doesn't
have
such
a
law?
B
E
There's
you
know
just
to
to
to
name
two,
and
there
was
a
lot
of
corporate
support
if
we're
trying
to
push
this
legislation,
because
the
impact
of
the
text
as
they
are
right
now
would
be
like
devastating
for
open
source
in
Europe
and
for
Europe.
Frankly,
and
so
I
mean
what
I've
very
clearly
heard
from
circles
around
around
Brussels.
Is
that,
like
real
examples
of
like
real
people
actually
being
impacted,
is
one
of
the
most
powerful
tools
that
you
can
leverage?
A
The
Linux
Foundation
is
also
playing
a
role
in
expondition
Europe,
and
we
also
at
the
openjs
foundation,
signed
a
letter
on
the
Cyber
resilience
act
with
a
couple
of
other
LF
foundations.
So.
E
Yes,
thank
you
Robin,
of
course,
absolutely
gab
who's
leading
the
newly
funded
alef
Europe
is
driving
this
also,
and
so
like
I
mean
it's
a
really
big
deal
in
Europe
like
any
any
organization
that,
like
canned,
is
actually
trying
to
do
something
right
now,.
C
Yeah
yeah
the
main
yeah
I
support
this.
If
you're
willing
to
invest
the
time,
Toby
I
would
ask
that
you
keep
us
informed,
you
know
fairly
regularly
what
what
is
happening
there
and
that
you
know
when
possible.
You,
you
build
a
consensus
of
this
group
before
you
know,
taking
taking
positions.
C
Absolutely
so,
but
but
especially
keeping
this
informed,
I
mean
that's
the
I
mean
I.
Think
that's.
The
argument
of
why
to
have
somebody
on
the
ground
is,
is
to
keep
us
informed
about
these
things.
So
if
you
know
when
you
have
engaged
or
you
were
about
to
engage,
you
know
letting
us
know
with
what
your
plans
are
and
what
the
you
know
result
was
would
would
be,
would
be
very
valuable.
E
There
are
absolutely
a
full
context
right
now.
I
think
first
plan
is
just
to
you
know,
keep
a
finger
on
what's
on
the
pulse
of
what's
going
on
and-
and
you
know,
if
something
comes
up
then
come
back
to
this
group
to
see
what
we
can
do.
A
So
till
we
let
me
know
how
we
can
help
on
the
process
to
make
this
happen.
A
E
Yeah
I
don't
know,
I
I
can
reach
out
to
Mouse
to
see
or
I
can
reach
out
directly
to
the
OSI
to
see
I'll
do
that
yeah.
A
A
A
Great,
hey,
I,
see
Ethan's
here,
hey
Ethan
glad
you
could
join
we're
gonna
head
back
to
issues
and
hit
that
one
of
the
the
top
of
the
list
issue
233,
discuss
package
Json,
standardization
and
governance.
G
Of
course,
so
thanks
thanks
y'all
for
waiting
for
me
had
a
little
Miss
con
Miss
calendar
on
my
end
and
then
there's
a
versa
incident
that
I
had
to
bow
out
of
so
yeah.
So
for
this
this
one
in
particular
package.json
at
the
collab
Summit
I'll,
give
a
little
bit
of
background.
G
There
was
expressed
basically
just
the
idea
of
like
package.
Json
has
traditionally
been
documented
in
many
different
places
around
the
web,
including
npm
and
node.js,
and
I
I
like
to
bring
up
webpack.
It's
also
used
in
tool.
G
It's
also
been
documented
for
usage
and
tools
like
eslint
and
jest,
and
essentially
it's
very
fragmented,
how
you
actually
utilize
package.json,
and
so
there
is
some
inkling
or
some
desire
for
some
way
to
try
to
bring
that
all
into
the
same
place,
and
that
of
course
makes
everyone
think
first,
including
myself,
of
a
specifying
so
creating
a
specification
for
package.json
and
with
that
specification,
the
reason
why
I'm
coming
here
is:
let's
say
we
were
to
specify
package
Json
and
I
I,
don't
want
to
have
the
conversation
here
about
what
we're
going
to
specify
or
how
we're
going
to
specify
it.
G
But,
let's
just
say
we
specify
it
what
like
organizational
structure,
may
we
need
to
build
around
that
in
order
to
best
support
that
effort
and
I
provided
some
options
like?
Should
this
exist
in
a
standards
body
such
as
tc39
or
like
what
wig
or
whatnot,
or
should
it
be
like
open
governed?
And
what
does
that
mean
like?
Do
we
create
a?
Is
it
just
a
GitHub
org
that
has
meal
once
a
month?
G
Meetings
about
you
know,
work
done
on
it
and
then
it
that
org
is
responsible
for
for
managing
the
specification,
and
then,
in
that
case,
if
the
speaker,
if
the
specification
is
open
governed,
is
it
you
know?
Where
does
that
lie
with
like?
Is
it
actually
standardized
or
not
so
very
loose
right
now,
I'm
kind
of
still
in
the
like
investigation
stage
of
all
this
trying
to
get
as
much
information
as
possible,
so
that
I
can
try
and
build
the
best
solution?
H
Question
yeah
that
I
would
have
put
a
big
vote
for
this,
like
how
it
happened
on
the
console
API,
because
console
was
used
in
multiple
browsers,
but
we
didn't
have
any
standardization
already
and
it
would
be
great
to
see
package
updation
also
to
be
part
of
it
and
I'm
happy
to
collaborate
and
contribute
and
whatever
meaningful
ways
is
possible.
G
Okay,
I
think
that's
a
great
call
out,
nonetheless,
because
we
are
definitely
looking
at
previous
history
of
things,
because
that
will
be
a
a
great
way
for
us
to
see
like
what
has
been
done
previously.
So
thank
you.
E
You
will
have
to
make
sure
that
you
have
the
blessing
of
the
people
who
actually
have
defined
the
existing
structures
that
you
want
to
bring
together
and
open
body
in
order
to
be
able
to
do
that.
Right
so
I
mean
that's
I,
don't
know
how
far
you
are.
E
It
was
that
conversation,
but
you
know
clearly
having
npm
and
you
know
the
other
folks
who
well
you
mentioned,
like
a
number
of
places
where
this
was
happening
with
this,
where
this
had
happened
and
making
sure
that
they
are
on
board
and
are
happy
to
contribute
their
intellectual
property
to
somewhere
right,
and
you
know
it's
fairly
probable-
that
a
lot
of
a
good
chunk
of
like
what's
going
to
allow
you
to
make
that
decision
is
where
they
are
happy
to
bring
their
IP
to.
E
G
100
and
in
fact,
I've
actually
commented
that,
in
the
thread
about
this
exact
question
and
one
of
the
ways
I
want
to
look
into,
that
is
I,
think
I
I
think
I
asked
yeah
what
is
a
good
way
to
approach
key
stakeholders
I'm
here,
looking
for,
like
all
of
the
info
and
all
of
the
Insight
that
everyone
here
can
provide
so
like
what
is
the
best
way
we
could
approach
npm,
yarn,
node.js
pnpm,
even
like
everyone
in
the
game
and
be
like
in
an
inclusive,
productive,
solution-driven
way.
G
How
can
we
approach
them
with
like
what
we're
trying
to
do
here
that
doesn't
make
them
maybe
feel
like?
Oh
we're,
we're
coming
for
them,
or
oh
blameful,
this
or
blameful
that,
but
more
so
generally,
like
npm
is
owned
by
GitHub
owned
by
Microsoft.
If
npm
is
the
documentation
for
package.json
right
now,
like
are
we
gonna
have
to
face,
like
legal
lawyer
like
speak
to
like
figure
this
out
to
get
through
this
IP
law
like
what
is
there
I
have
no
idea,
that's
what
I'm?
What's
that's
what
I'm
here
to
to
gain.
A
A
Oh
okay,
you
don't
see
it
all
right!
So,
okay,
why
don't
we
hit
Wes.
I
Yeah
I
just
wanted
to
point
out
I'm,
not
actually
sure
if
there
is
clear
ownership
from
npm
or
Microsoft
in
this
case
right.
So
these
things
predate
like
a
ton
like
some
of
the
decisions,
predate
I,
think
even
the
formation
of
npm,
so
it
might
be
like
individual
contributors
who
actually
own
some
of
the
IP
here
right
so
like
the.
If
we
even
just
break
it
down
by
field
like
I,
think
the
name
and
version
Fields
like
predated,
probably
back
to
like
Isaac,
probably
would
be
my
guess.
D
I'm
sure
I'm
sure
it's
Isaac
and
I'm
sure
that
he
ensured
that
the
npm
company
obtained
all
the
rights
necessary
at
that
point,
but
I'm
also
like
given
that
npm
and
node
and
many
tools
have
all
used
it
like
I,
don't
know
how
anyone
could
really
claim
ownership
of
it,
especially
since
there
wasn't
a
central
Authority.
There
was
just.
This
is
what
npm
does
and.
I
I
I
think
this
is
why
I'm
pretty
interested
in
finding
sort
of
a
more
at
least
a
start,
a
a
approach
here
that
just
sets
us
up
to
have
some
agreement
and
then,
if
we
get
to
a
point
where
we've
identified,
here's
a
clear,
IP
owner
of
this
field
and
this
field
in
this
field
and
they've
signed
off
and
here's
a
clear
owner
of
this
field
in
this
field.
In
this
field
and
they've
signed
off,
then
I
think
having
the
conversation
where
we
move
it
to
the
next
stage,
which
is
like
yeah.
I
What
would
it
take
to
then
take
this
to
a
standards
body
and
get
that
chunk
of
the
work?
Standardized
I
think
is
going
to
be
a
lot
easier
than
trying
to
like
go
whole
on
it
right
up
from
the
front,
because
again
it's
like
it
is
a
very
distributed
set
of
of
folks
and-
and
you
know,
obviously,
we
should
try
to
get
them
in,
but
I
think
I
think
if
we
just
say
actually
going
to
a
standards.
I
Body
is
a
five
to
you,
know
ten
year
plan,
and
maybe
that's
too
long,
but
you
know
something
that's
further
out
and
we
say
in
the
short
term,
what
we
want
to
do
is
make
sure
we
just
don't
make
any
mistakes
that
would
prevent
us
from
then
going
to
a
standards
body
later
right
so
like
getting
all
the
sign
off
is,
like
probably
maybe,
should
be
like
a
non-goal
to
start,
if
it
just
so
happens,
and
everybody
just
comes
out
of
the
woodwork
and
says.
Oh,
please
sign
me
up.
I
I
want
to
give
this
to
the
you
know,
to
a
a
standards
body.
Obviously
that
would
be
an
amazing
outcome,
but
I
just
I,
don't
see
that
being
likely
so
I'm
wondering.
Is
there
any
advice
that
folks
have
specifically
toward
that?
Like
just
the
here's,
a
mistake
you
should
not
make
if
you
are
trying
to
prepare
for
this
possibly
Landing
in
a
standard
body
someday,
even
if
it's
not
like
a
primary
goal
today,.
E
E
Yeah
I
would
start
by
I
mean
like
this
scene.
This
should
not
be
contentious.
Frankly,
I
like
it
doesn't
look
like
a
contentious
topic.
It
doesn't
look
like
a
topic
where
there's
a
lot
of
you
know
valuable
IP
in
in
the
background,
such
as
patterns
of
things
like
this.
So
you
know
it
doesn't.
Look
like
a
con
yeah
I
would
I
would
have
conversations
with
people
and
to
see.
E
If
there's
you
know
a
will
to
go
in
that
direction
and
understand
if
there
is
not
because
you're
better
off
knowing
about
this
right
now
than
the
ones
you've
actually
done.
A
whole
bunch
of
work
right
and
I
also
think
that
you
know
between
folks
here
and
in
the
CPC
and
then
the
the
board.
E
You
will
find
a
number
of
good
connections
to
put
you
in
contact
with
the
right
folks
within
the
relevant
organizations,
and
you
and
you
I,
think
you
should
start
I
would
I
would
strongly
suggest,
starting
with
this,
because
I
don't
see
how
anything
else
will
create
a
you
know:
a
different
outcome
like
I.
Don't
I,
don't
think
that
standardizing
the
actual
thing
is
the
hard
part.
E
I
think
that
the
hard
part
is
getting
the
agreement
that
like
this
is
what
we
want
to
do
and
I
mean
you
know
you
will
need
to
get
approval
from
like
folks
who
are
able
to
give
approval
for
that
which
edible,
Buzz
lawyers
I'm
afraid.
But
it's
not
it's
not
going
to
be
that
I.
Don't
think
it
should
be
that
bad
like
if,
if
everyone's
willing
to
do
it
and
seize
value,
there's
no
reason
for
it
to
be
like
a
difficult
thing.
You
know
it
involved
a
little,
but
I
don't
think
it
should
be
difficult.
A
G
Yeah
I
think
that's
kind
of
my
next
question
was
going
to
be.
It
really
sounds
like
buy-in
is
going
to
be
our
biggest
challenge
and
also
not
even
chat,
but
then
you
don't
even
challenge,
but
also
just
like
that's
the
biggest
first
step
and
we've
talked
about,
and
we
talked
about
the
conference.
We
talked
about
it.
Some
of
my
some
folks
in
DMS
and
even
in
the
GitHub
issue,
so
like
from
the
open,
JS
side
or
even
just
from
personal
connections
like
is
there?
G
Could
we
draft
up
almost
like
a
plan
of
attack
of
like
here
is
what
we're
gonna
send
and
it
could
be
me
like
I
will
personally
like
reach
out
individually
to
all
of
these
folks,
but
like
can
I
is
there
like?
A
connection
could
be
made
like
I,
don't
know
the
guy
who
who
builds
yarn
or
maintains
yarn
I,
believe
it's
a
singular
individual
and
it's
like.
If
someone
does
know
him
personally
and
is
on
a
good
Network.
G
Could
they
like
put
me
and
him
together
and
like
be
like
cool,
let's,
like
here's
Ethan,
introducing
take
it
away.
Similarly,
like
the
endorsement
from
openjs,
be
wonderful,
like
here's,
a
new
project
initiative
that
I'm
spearheading
on
behalf
of
openjs
foundation
and
winter
CG.
We
are
I'm
here
to
talk
with
you
to
figure
this
out
and
like
that
would
be
a
really
awesome.
H
I
A
Hey
Leia
had
her
hand
up
and
then
down
and
then
had
some
good
points
in
chat.
J
Yeah
one
of
this,
the
conversation
kind
of
moved
on.
That's
why
I
lowered
my
hand
afterwards,
but
like
yeah,
one
of
the
things
was
to
point
out
my
my
point
in
the
chat
that
standardizing
in
an
existing
Consortium
has
several
benefits,
one
of
them
being
patent
protection,
at
least
with
w3c
I'm,
not
100,
sure
what
goes
on
with
what
WG
and
their
patent
protection.
J
Another
thing
is
that
various
stakeholders
already
recognize
and
respect
work
that
tends
to
come
out
of
these
consortiums
compared
to
like
this
ad
hoc
group,
but
also
there
are
more
lightweight
processes
these
days
for
incubating
a
standard.
It
doesn't
have
to
be
an
either
or
either
we
do
it
under
w3c,
for
example,
or
we
just
like
come
up
with
our
own
group.
There
are
Community
groups,
there's
Y
icg,
which
is
it
whose
purpose
is
exactly
incubating
standards
I
mean.
J
Obviously
it
doesn't
have
the
same
pattern
protections,
but
it
has
there's
an
existing
process
from
my
ACG
spec
to
eventually
being
a
working
groups
back
and
also
I
was
thinking
I
really
like
the
idea
overall
of
a
standardizing
package.json.
In
addition
to
the
reasons
that
have
already
been
mentioned,
I
was
thinking
one
of
the
benefits
of
standardizing.
This
would
be
to
Define
explicit
extension
points
because,
right
now,
it's
like
anything
goes
like
random
tools.
Just
add
random
keys
to
the
root,
which
is
not
great
for
future
extensibilities.
G
Yeah,
big
plus
one,
that
is
that's
one
of
our
major
points:
I
I,
really
liked
what
you're
talking
about
like
putting
it
when
you
get
it
to
a
standard
body.
There's
like
that
patent
protection
I
want
to
poke
at
that.
If
I
can
a
little
bit
on
the
flip
side,
the
open
governance
model
really
stood
out
to
me
when
people
described
that
to
me
last
week.
G
A
E
E
G
Sure
so,
I
think
what
was
described
to
me
and
at
least
my
understanding
of
open
governance
is
like
I'm
gonna,
go
and
create
a
new
GitHub
org
called
package
Json
like
that's
the
org
name
or
something,
and
then
that
org
is
going
to
create,
is
going
to
have
the
repo
that
is
like
admin
and
that's
gonna
have
hold
the
monthly
meetings
and
then
there's
going
to
be
the
spec
and
then
there's
going
to
be
the
tooling
and
then
there's
going
to
be
like.
And
it's
like
a
it's
run
like
that.
G
Where
then,
that
like
I,
participate
on
behalf
of
maybe
versel
or
maybe
openjs,
or
maybe
winter
CG,
and
then
maybe
West
per
participates
on
behalf
of
node.js,
just
like
random,
like
if
there's
a
person
individual
who
participates
and
represents
all
the
major
stakeholders
and
there's
in
my
head,
there's
a
there's,
a
a
governance
model
for
like
how
you
run
elections
and
how
you
run
like
you
know
how
a
member
becomes
a
member
of
this
open
org
and
how
a
representative
becomes
a
representative.
G
That's
what's
in
my
head
and
please
correct
me
if
it's
totally
off
base.
E
Yeah
no
I
mean
thank
you
for
clarifying
what
you're
describing
is
essentially
the
structure
that
you
will
find
in
the
foundation
or
a
Consortium,
except
you
will
have
to
invent
everything
from
scratch.
Get
a
lawyer
to
approve
and
write
a
whole
bunch
of
stuff.
It's
going
to
cost.
You
I,
don't
know
200
to
350k
to
just
like
set
everything
up,
and
then
you
want
to
have
to
spend
another
100K
a
year
to
run
the
thing,
and
so
you're,
probably
better
off
like
doing
that
in
the
structure.
E
That,
like
has
everything
set
up
for
you
for
that,
and
you
know
we'll
provide
it
for
free
so
and
essentially
like
the
fun
points
of
that.
You
know
the
ones
that
are
attractive
and
just
let
you
like
band
together
and
do
the
work
that
you
want
to
do
like
that's
fairly.
That's
an
available
thing
in
a
bunch
of
different
organizations,
I
mean
the
wycj
that
Leia
was
mentioning
before
you
know
fits
that
the
the
LF
has
a
similar
kind
of
structure
like
there's
a
whole.
E
You
know
that
that's
fairly
available,
so
I
would
strongly
advise
you
to
go
with
something
like
this.
If
you
don't
want
to
turn
yourself
into
a
lawyer,
a
friendly
person
for
the
next
like
year
and
a
half
and
do
nothing
else
about
that,
that's.
G
G
Okay,
perfect,
so
that's
exactly
the
answer.
I
was
looking
for
and
then
sounds
like
there's
many
Avenues
there,
which
we
will
explore
almost
kind
of
when
we
get
there
like.
Let's,
you
know
we
gotta
solve
buy-in
first,
and
then
we
can.
But
this
sounds
like
there
is
paths
forward
there,
which
kind
of
leads
me
to
like.
Maybe
try
to
wrapping
this
up.
G
I,
don't
know
how,
if
there's
any
other
topics
or
not
for
today
that
want
to
make
space
for,
but
just
like
what
are
some
good
next
steps
here
for
me
directly,
I
am
very
motivated
to
drive
this
and
I
said
before,
having
those
conversations
or
doing
that
Outreach
and
getting
people
on
board
so
yeah.
What
are
what
are
some
good
next
steps
that
I
should
be
looking
at?
G
E
So
I
think
that
you
know,
as
was
mentioned
before
folks,
are
resource
constrained
more
than
usual
right
and
so
I
think.
The
biggest
thing
that
you
have
to
do
is
make
the
case
for
why
there
is
a
value
in
doing
this,
for
the
organizations
that
wouldn't
need
to
do
it
like
very
clearly.
What
are
they
going
to
get
out
of
it?
A
Yeah
I
was
thinking
the
same
thing
like
a
one-page
position
paper.
Put
it
in
front
of
this
group,
put
it
in
front
of
the
CPC,
the
winter
CG
folks,
and
then
it
can
be
sort
of
officially
you
know,
endorsed
and
and
then
we
can
help
you
on
that
stakeholder
identification
introductions.
Things
like
that
West
you
had
something
yeah.
I
I
was
gonna,
say
in
producing
a
doc
I
think
we
should
very
much
focus
on
Jordan's.
Feedback
of
this
should
be
user-centered.
What
are
the?
What
are
the
problems?
Users
have
with
the
way
the
status
of
the
world
today,
those
users
could
be
the
tools
themselves,
npm
and
and
node,
but
I
think
it
also
should
probably
cover
like
what
can
we
provide
value
to?
You
know
end
users
as
well,
because
I
think
there
is
stuff
here
like
I,
have
a
bunch
of
examples.
I
I
I
want
to
be
involved
in
the
conversation
so
I'm
happy
to
to
pair
on
on
producing
this
document,
but
I
definitely
think
starting
less
from
the
solution
side
and
a
lot
more
from
the
like.
This
is
why
this
matters
at
all,
you
know:
here's
the
user
impact
we
we
hope
to
have
I
think
we'll
be
will
be
very
important.
To
selling
is
maybe
not
the
right
word
but
to
you
know,
helping
buy-in.
G
I
just
had
a
thought
of:
oh:
where
would
be
what
would
be
a
conductive
or
productive
way
to
like
I
want
folks
like
Jordan
and
Wes
and
and
everyone
else
as
well,
to
be
like
getting
involved
in
this
and
like
I'm
gonna,
you
know,
I'll
take
the
onus
of
writing
the
doc,
but
then,
when
I
share
it-
and
we
do
this
iteration
and
feedback,
is
there
a
place
where
we
could
be
having
these
conversations?
G
Is
there
a
place
like
like
I,
already
have
sort
of
like
the
winter
CG
like
space
to
use?
We
can
do
it
there.
We
can
do
it
here.
We
can
do
somewhere
else.
So
what?
What
would
that
look
like.
D
B
I
My
thing
with
that
thing
right
and
like
the
specific
goal
here
is
getting
the
other
runtimes
on
board,
so
yeah
I
mean
I.
Think
having
a
small
discussion
on
how
maybe
like
the
package
maintenance
working
group,
is
the
representative
of
the
node
project
in
this,
but
I
think
like
having
the
the
actual
discussion
not
be
a
node
thing
would
be,
is
helping
there.
A
We
we
also
from
the
board
perspective.
We
give
a
standards
working
group
update
to
our
board
of
directors
as
well
as
the
CPC
update.
So
you
know
you're
welcome
to
come
present
to
our
board
during
that
time,
when,
when
you're
ready
to
have
them,
take
a
look,
so
you
were
saying
maybe
outside
the
standards
working
group
or
a
CPC
thing.
G
I'm,
not
sure
I,
don't
fully
know
like
the
whole
structure
here
of
where
all
the
pieces
are
so
I'm
sort
of
happy
to
have
it.
Wherever
I
think
Wes
made
a
great
point
that
it
needs
to
be
something
that
all
participants
will
feel
is
like
equal
ground.
I
like
we
very
strictly
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
not
like,
if
there's
any
bias
from
the
get-go,
which
is
where
Winter
CG
fits
really
well,
because
all
the
run
times
are
already
there
and
are
already
like.
G
We
feel
that
we
can
participate
in
voice
and
have
that
there,
the
package
managers
who
are
most
important
here-
that's
the
kind
of
people
who
I'm
like
they
would
be
more
than
welcome
inside
of
winter
CG
space
for
this
purpose,
but
maybe
they
don't
feel
as
comfortable
there.
So
is
there
something
that
the
openjs
could
host
or
provide
like
that's
what
maybe
an
acpc
or
something
like
that.
B
It
was
just
in
relation
to
like
the
the
like,
I
had
posted
in
the
package
maintenance
work
group,
because
you
know
back
when
we
were
talking
it.
You
know,
Jordan
might
be
familiar.
West
will
be
familiar
when
we
were
talking
about
even
just
the
from
a
package
Json
aspect
of
doing
the
support
key
for
helping
derive.
You
know,
support
and
whatnot
that
was
from
a
packet
Json
level.
B
So
that's
why
I
kind
of
brought
the
package
working
group
as
like
Quest
saying
as
being
maybe
the
stakeholder
from
the
node
aspect
to
drive
that
forward,
because
you
know
we've
done
some
level
in
that
working
group
for
adding
steps
to.
You
know:
support
from
npm,
CLI
and
stuff
like
that,
for
the
support
key.
E
A
E
That's
like
what
you
need
right
and
so
I
think
at
this
stage
like
where
it
happens,
I
mean
you're
just
describing
a
problem.
You're
not
like
there's
no,
like
IP
involved,
there's
no
governance
requirements
around
this.
This
is
like
you
know,
a
project
that
you
want
to
you
want
to
do
so.
You
know
the
key
thing
is:
if
it
doesn't
matter
where
I
mean
frankly,
it
could
be
anywhere
as
long
as
like
you're.
You
have
the
right
people
in
the
room.
You
know
virtual,
but
like
that's
what
really
matters?
E
It's
like
the
right
people
and
by
right
people.
It's
like
the
people
that
will
need
to
do
the
implementation
work
and
that
are
influenced
and
like
actually
driving
the
format
form.
E
A
Thanks
thanks
Lee,
so
yeah
right
right.
People
happy
to
host
with
the
idea
of
you:
don't
want
to
create
duplicative
meetings
or
meetings
where
most
of
the
same
people
are
attending.
So
let's
think
about
that.
A
Maybe,
if
you're
interested
in
participating,
let
me
know
and
I'm
happy
to
coordinate
with
Ethan
and
we'll
we'll
check
in
with
the
CPC
as
well,
but
I
think
that
makes
a
lot
of
sense
and
maybe
we
can
get
creative
with
our
working
sessions
or
some
of
our
meetings
just
again
so
we're
being
efficient
about
our
convenings
awesome.
A
A
D
I
haven't
done
an
update
yet
because
we're
only
halfway
through
the
second
day
right
now,
so,
okay,
our
lunch
break,
ends
right
now
and
I'm
gonna
hop
back
in
it.
So
I'll
give
an
update,
awesome.