►
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
Okay
and
we
are
being
recorded
all
right-
welcome
to
the
May
30th
edition
of
this
openjs
Foundation
standards.
Working
group
meeting
we've
got
a
lovely
crew
as
usual
here
with
us
today,
working
from
issue
number
234
in
the
standards
repo.
A
If
you
happen
to
click
in
and
follow
along
with
the
notes
that
would
be
swell
announcements,
I
don't
really
have
any
immediate
announcements.
The
only
thing
I
was
just
gonna
share
is
because
I
was
out
for
the
May
16
meeting,
unplanned
absence
I'm
just
re
going
through
the
the
notes
and
the
recording
is
on
YouTube
now,
but
the
notes
document
isn't
quite
ready
yet
so
that's
that
and
then
Robin
we
have
a
maybe
a
couple
of
openjs
meetings
this
week.
Is
there
CPC
meeting
today,
or
does
that
already
happen?.
B
A
working
group
meeting
today
we
have
program
committee
tomorrow
where
the
group
is
working
already
scoring
the
cfps
that
came
in
through
Europe.
So
that's
pretty
cool.
A
Anybody
else
have
any
other,
just
announcements
before
we
get
into
I
guess
I
do
want
to
say.
Welcome
to
Leo
Cuna
from
the
kirkey
team
has
joined
us
today.
Welcome
Leo
thank.
B
A
Yeah,
so
no
other,
no
other
announcements.
We
will
go
into
liaison.
A
C
Just
so
last
time
we
met
I
think
was
in
the
middle
of
the
tc39
meeting.
So
I
didn't
really
talk
about
pc39,
so
Hey
man
hey
month
again
put
out
one
of
his
summaries,
which
I
would
refer
to
I.
Don't
have
the
link
offhand,
but
a
number
of
things
change
stage.
C
Decorator
metadata
went
to
stage
three
which
joins
regular
decorators
array.
Grouping
drop
back
down
to
stage
two
and
I
took
over
or
not
took
over,
I
joined
on
as
a
champion
because
the
prototype
methods
were
not
compatible,
not
web
compatible.
So
they're
I'm
going
to
try
and
bring
them
back
in
the
next
meeting
as
static
methods,
and
then
a
number
of
proposals
went
to
stage
two
promised
out
with
resolvers.
C
So
it's
like
the
Deferred
pattern
and
then
a
time
zone,
canonicalization
proposal
which
I'm
not
going
to
pretend
I
understand
but
is
very
important
for
temporal
stuff
and
internationalization
and
then
there's
a
let's
see,
float
16
array
went
to
stage
three.
C
C
A
Awesome
sounds
like
a
lot
of
a
lot
of
things
to
for
for
our
community
to
check
out
and
a
lot
of
did.
There
was
like
two
or
three
that
you
noted
went
to
stage
four.
C
Yeah
three
of
them,
but
the
stage
three
is
the
more
interesting
time
because
that's
when
they're
going
to
become
shift
in
browsers
Yeah
by
stage
four
they've
already
like
been
out
for
a
while
and
like
Babel
already
supports
them,
and
so
on.
Yeah.
A
I
just
I
think
stage.
Four
is
also
one
that
we
should
celebrate
because
sure
it's
you
know
it's
like,
so
that's
cool
congrats
to
to
all
of
the
champions.
For
those
it's
a
pretty
big
deal
so
tc53
we
have
Donovan
Buck,
but
he
is
not
here
and
I
think
they
also
had
a
plenary
last
week.
So
we'll
just
grab
him
next
time,
Leia
any
anything
from
the
w3c
land.
W3C
tag
that
you
want
to
report
on
today
from.
B
B
If
you
all
want
to
comment
on
that,
but
looking
at
trying
to
find
a
time
that
works
for
a
lot
of
folks.
That
is
open,
source
Summit
China,
but
it
would
be
virtual,
but
we're
also
looking
at
having
some
in-person
pre-planning
meetups
at
open
source,
Summit
and
the
w3c
meeting.
Is
it
TPAC
in
Sevilla,
yeah.
A
What
days
did
you
say
was
the
new.
B
September
26th
through
the
28th,
so
that
is
the
proposal
with
three
two-hour
sessions
so
seven
to
nine
a.m:
Pacific
10
to
noon;
Eastern,
three
to
five
UK,
four
to
six
Toby
time
and
then
five
to
seven
Tel
Aviv.
E
B
F
Yeah
I
just
want
to
make
sure
that
Jordan
actually
gets
that
in
the
tc39.
The
internationalization
effort
on
time
zones
that
he
was
talking
about
sneak.
C
A
Awesome
and
then
we
do
not
have
Emily
here
from
unicode
and
then
that
next
one
would
be
OSI
and
I
understand
from
our
last
call
that
I
was
catching
up.
That
Toby
is
going
to
be
stepping
in
to
Phil
miles's
shoes.
We
have
to
do
some
things
to
make
that
official,
but
I
guess
just
to
get
it
in
our
regular
liaison
updates
Toby
any
updates
from
OSI.
This.
F
Precisely
because,
like
I,
don't
have
access
to
the
mailing
list
yet,
but
there
are,
you
know,
there's
a
very,
very
unpoint
set
of
topics
around
the
legislation
in
the
EU
and
the
US,
and
so
there
are
things
happening
around
this,
but
you
know
no
nothing
more
concrete
than
that
I'm
working
actually
on
the
presentation,
more
Upstream
on
the
topic.
F
A
And
then
Toby
you'd
also
put
in
chat.
The
IEEE
has
a
a
governance
group,
that's
chaired
I,
think
by
Stephen
Wally.
Is
this
the
group
that
you're
referring
to
yeah.
F
So
a
long
story
short
and
this
kind
of
ties
into
we
have
an
open
issue
on
the
CPC
about
sort
of
like
the
governance
model
of
the
foundation
and
how
that
differs
from
other
kind
of
governance
models
of
like
vendor,
driven
or
bdfl
Etc,
and
there
was
a
little
pretty
much
effort
to
do
enlarge
standard
on
open
source
governance,
I,
Triple
E,
and
this
is
kind
of
imploding
right
now,
because
there's
like
some
difficulty
between
the
different
expectations
around
process
and
so
essentially,
there's
some
regrouping
happening,
and
it's
probably
going
to
move
outside
of
IEEE.
F
As
my
expectation,
maybe
around
the
work
that
the
eclipse
foundation
and
ospo
Zone
and
Osco,
plus,
plus
and
ow2,
have
been
running.
So
just
a
heads
up
that
there
is.
You
know
some
governance,
some
plans
to
organize
to
sort
of
like
standardize
on
governance
and
terminology
around
it
and
that
that
was
supposed
to
happen
at
Triple
E.
It's
probably
going
to
happen
somewhere
else.
A
So
I
mean
we
don't
have
a
liaise
and
relationship
with
IEEE
I
would
say
it
may
be
worth
just
kind
of
keeping
tabs
on
how
that
project
progresses,
but
probably
not
something
at
the
moment
that
we
wanna
I,
don't
know
this.
My
gut
is
that
there's
some
it's
maybe
two.
It
may
be
kind
of
noise
it
as
it
connects
to
us
right
at
this.
At
this
juncture
in
time,
like
maybe
I,
don't
know,
maybe-
or
maybe
it
is
relevant
to
the
CPC-
that's
maybe
something
to
figure.
F
Out
so
my
perspective
is
there's
an
open
issue
on
the
topic
for
which
it
is
sort
of
slightly
relevant,
but
it's
going
to
take
a
while
until
there's
a
new
Direction
and
instruction
on
an
organization
around
us,
and
so
I
wouldn't
worry
about
it
too
much.
But
it's
it's
more
like
you
know,
for
information
in
case
some
of
you
were
aware
of
this
or
tracking
it.
F
Essentially,
there
was
a
good
energy
and
it's
told
for
process
reasons
and
that's
a
sort
of
like
stalled
momentum,
and
it's
kind
of
like
folks
are
trying
to
regroup
and
figure
out
how
to
handle
it.
G
There
any
lessons
we
might
get
from
the
what
stalled
it
any
patterns
there
that
might
apply
to
other
communities.
F
A
With
I
had
a
conversation
with
Stephen
about
it
two
weeks
ago-
and
you
know
this
was
just
sort
of
a
casual
Coffee
Talk,
but
he
he
kind
of
so
I,
wouldn't
want
to
say
too
much,
but
he
kind
of
just
referred
to
to
the
fact
that
you
know
IEEE
in
this
particular
space,
where
they're
working,
very
formal
standards,
kind
of
process
and
systems.
A
But
the
work
of
the
of
this
particular
group
was
not
meant
to
sort
of
be
that
like
yes,
we
would
that
the
group
would
eventually
come
up
with
a
a
standard
for
terms
and
things
of
of
that
nature,
but
it
didn't
necessarily
require
the
same
overhead
and
so
I
think
I
think
he
he
sort
of
referenced
more
of
the
kind
of
cultural
distinction
between
the
open
source,
C
style
approach
of
of
many
of
the
participants
of
this
group
compared
to
the
the
very
process,
heavy
technical
standards
system
that
IEEE
has
has
for
this
sort
of
activity
and
those
things
being
somewhat
at
odds.
A
F
I
mean
I
I,
think
to
answer
Michael's
question
being
a
clear
upfront
about
IP
questions
being
clear
up
front
about
what
it
is
that
you're
trying
to
do
you're
being
clear
up
front
about
working
modes
before
you
decide
to
go
in
a
specific
environment
to
work
on.
Something
is
a
good
thing
and
should
have
been
probably
done
was
more
due
diligence
before
getting
down
that
road,
so
that
that's
kind
of
like
my
lesson
from
that
is
really
that
one
is
like
there
is.
F
There
were
places
where
it
makes
sense
to
work
on
certain
stuff
and
places
where
it
makes
sense
to
work
on
other
stuff
and
to
some
degree
you
know
it's
kind
of
like
you
pick
the
place
that
matters
for
what
you're
trying
to
achieve
and
I
think
it
was
a
real
mismatch
there.
That
should
have
been
figured
out
like
way
way
earlier
than
that.
A
A
All
right,
okay,
that
gets
us
through
announcements
and
ways
and
updates
now
on
to
our
regularly
scheduled
agenda
items
I'm
just
going
to
take
a
second
and
because
I
know,
we've
got
some
newer
folks
here
you
can
add
anything
to
the
agenda
by
opening
an
issue
on
the
standards,
repo
and
then
adding
the
label
standard
stash
agenda
so
feel
free.
If
there's
something
you
want
to
discuss
in
the
future
or
even
now,
you
know
just
open
up
an
issue,
and
this
will
help
us
sort
of
track
that
stuff.
A
So
that's
that,
just
as
an
FYI
issue,
232
is
the
the
a
b
election
ballot
that
is
due
on
Thursday
I
was
watching
and
listening
and
reading
the
the
report
from
last
week.
So
I
know
that
Mike
champion
and
Brian
and
Toby
have
already
kind
of
led
a
general
conversation
here.
So
the
action
that
I'm
going
to
take
is
go.
A
Take
a
look
at
the
votes
from
last
time
and
submit
our
our
ballot
and
mostly
just
reaffirm
who
who
we,
who
we
chose
in
in
the
prior
election,
but
I'll
update
the
working
group
chat
in
slack
and
y'all.
Can
let
me
know
if
you
have
any
recommended
changes,
but
the
list
that
I
have
in
the
agenda
and
I
will
pop
that
actually
in
Zoom
chat.
A
Here
is
generally
my
order,
based
on
my
memory
of
our
last
ballot,
but
I
can
go
look
that
up
so
unless
there's
anything
else
so
I'll
move
on
to
the
next
agenda
topic.
A
Of
pajamas
I
also
think
very
highly
of
Chris
Wilson.
F
A
So,
anyway,
I
don't
know
why
I'm
gonna
have
to
look
it
up
later.
I,
don't
know
where
that
idiom
came
from
it
just.
B
A
That
means
that
you
like
something:
it's
a
good
thing
to
do
the
cat's
pajamas
anyway,
but
but
I
also
know
that
Chris
Chris's
affiliation
with
with
Google
Chris,
has
done
some
amazing
work
as
well
on
The
Advisory
Council
and
has
has
really
put
in
a
lot
of
time
and
effort,
but
I
know
that
he
gets
docked
because
he's
a
googler,
and
that
is
something
I'm
just
trying
to
counter
counterbalance
a
little
bit
so
I
think
Toby
and
then
Leia.
F
Yeah
no
I
just
want
to
point
out
that
you
know
again
that
voting
STV
mechanism,
like
really
means
that,
like
you,
really
get
essentially
to
choose
one
and
so
order
matters.
G
Yeah
elica
won't
have
any
trouble
getting
votes.
Chris
will
yeah.
D
D
G
Yeah
and
Chris
for
all
the
crappy
gifts
is
a
real
voice
of
reason
within
Google
trying
to
keep
them
from
you
know
going
totally.
Oh,
you
know
down
the
road
they
have
been
going
on
since
they
dropped.
Let
don't
be
evil
foreign.
D
I
forgot
is
I
would
avoid
voting
in
the
strategically
in
the
sense
of
oh,
this
person
is
going
to
get
plenty
of
votes,
so
we
don't
need
to
put
them
first,
because
this
doesn't
always
work,
because
if
every,
if
everybody
thinks
that
way,
then
Nobody
ends
up
voting
for
that
person
like
see
what
happened
with
Alice
in
the
tag
election,
everybody
thought
that
oh
Alice
will
definitely
get
in.
Of
course,
it's
very
obvious
that
we
need
Alice,
and
then
she
ended
up
not
getting
elected,
because
I
guess
everybody
assumed
the
same
thing.
F
A
Yeah,
so
this
is
just
a
well,
as
you
guys
noted
last
time,
hopefully
a
reconfirmation
in
many
ways
and
there's
eight
people
running
for
six
positions.
So
two
people
are
not
going
to
be
happy,
but
yeah
I.
Think
generally
our
preferred
candidates,
I,
hope,
Are.
All
gonna
gonna
make
that
six
slot
Phil
have
have
a
role
in
those
six
one
of
those
six
spots
and
STV
voting
am
I
right.
All
right.
A
Moving
on
to
next
items
skip
down
really
quick
to,
hopefully
some
a
additional
ones
that
we
can
bang
out
really
quickly.
The
the
TPAC
also
discussed
last
week.
I
know
three
folks
from
our
community
are
are
planning
to
at
least
three
folks
from
our
community
are
planning
to
be
at
at
TPAC
in
Spain.
A
The
question
is
whether
one
of
those
three
or
all
three
of
those
three
folks
would
be
interested
in
proposing
a
breakout
session
for
that
Wednesday
and
granted.
That
does
sort
of
come
together
more
quickly
toward
closer
to
the
event.
But
I
think
that
is
something
that
we
should
consider,
especially
given
Leia's
recent
report
from
the
tag
and
how
to
get
more
open
source
developers.
Sort
of
weighing
in
and
I
think
that's
that's
a
space
where
openjs
proposing
a
breakout
session
along
those
lines
could
be
really
really
effective.
A
F
Because
I
I
think
like
that's:
what's
you
know
what
kind
of
outcomes
we
would
want
to
have
I
mean
those
breakout
sessions
tend
to
be
super
technical,
as
you
know,
like
really.
You
know
focused
on
like
very
sort
of
like
and
so
I.
Remember
you
having
lots
of
success.
Driving
sort
of
like
some
open
source
standard
kind
of
bridge,
so
I
mean
I.
Think
we
should
work
on
the
topic.
F
A
I
agree
and
I
think
you're
you're
spot
on
that
it
should
be
sort
of
outcome
oriented,
but
you
know
again
I'm
just
thinking
more
about
like
that
bridge
building
which
I
think
like
Brian,
Cardell
and
I
like
a
couple
before
the
pandemic.
A
long
time
ago
did
did
one.
A
We
may
have
done
that
two
years
in
a
row
and
I
just
feel
like
they.
They
did
well
in
that
people
came
and
they
were
excited
and
they
wanted
to
like
further
learn
from
us,
but
we're
now
at
the
point
where
we
have
to
kind
of
do
something:
a
lot
more
specific
than
just
remind
people
that,
like
open
source,
exists
or
that
we
should
do
things
together.
You
know
it's
now
like
it
we're
kind
of
at
that
point
where
we
have
to
go
what's
what's
next
here,
yeah.
G
I
think
the
concrete
problem
is
sort
of
in
the
in
the
standardization
process.
The
requirement
for
multiple
interoperability,
independently
built
interoperable
implementations,
which
for
increasingly
number
of
things
when
there's
only
one
open
source
implementation
and
people,
feel
good
about
that,
because
the
open
source
project
is
reasonably,
you
know,
broadly,
you
know,
diverse
and
openly
governed
blah
blah
blah
I
mean
my
thinking
is.
W3C
should
should
accommodate
that
reality.
There
are
some
people,
and
you
know
tontek
is
one
of
them.
G
Well,
it
partly
gets
into
the
Strategic
issues
of
those
who
compete
with
with
chromium.
Don't
want
to
give.
You
know,
don't
want
to
start
down
the
slippery
slope
of
of
basically
making
chromium
the
standards
organization.
G
So
it's
a
you
know
where
people
might
be
expected
to
agree
in
principle
that
open
source
implementations
you
know
with
that
meet
certain
criteria
should
sort
of
count
as
interoperable.
Even
if
there's.
C
G
One
basic
source
source
screen
anyway,
it's
a
it's
a
Nuance,
it's
a
tricky,
a
nuanced
issue
that
I
think
we
could
or
our
community
could
be
a
positive
voice
in,
but
we
have
to
navigate
some
tricky
political
Waters,
basically
created
by
you,
know:
chromium's
increasing
role
as
the
de
facto
standard
for
the
web
platform.
A
I
I
think
that
Toby's
right
that's
a
huge
can
of
worms
that
we
should
open.
Let
me
just
say
that
I
think
give
me
the
can
opener.
Let's
go.
F
F
So
yeah
I
mean
it
I
mean
I
think
this
is
like.
Not
only
is
it
the
biggest
can
of
Grooms
ever
it's
also
like
the
hugest
biggest
elephant
in
the
room
right
people.
A
E
F
Yeah,
so
I
am
gently
removing
myself
from
this
conversation.
F
No,
it's
I
mean
it's
an
important
conversation,
but
it's
a
highly
contentious
conversation
for
a
whole
bunch
of
obvious
reasons
and
a
whole
bunch
of
non-obvious
reasons
and
I.
Don't
know
how
to
have
this
conversation
in
a
way
that
doesn't
create
like
a
huge
amount
of
like
non-useful
contention.
F
If,
if
that
wasn't,
you
know,
if
there's
an
angle,
to
have
this
conversation
or
to
open
a
conversation
around
this,
then
you
know
it
could
be
really
interesting,
but
there's
so
much
like
there
was
identity
tied
to
the
different
like
there's
so
much
going
on
there.
F
It's
very,
very
complicated,
I
I,
don't
think
like
that.
Setting,
especially
like
I,
don't
think
an
external
body
bringing
that
conversation
inside
of
w3c
is
going
to
be
well
received.
That's
my
other
concern,
but.
G
We're
not
an
external
body,
we're
a
member
and
a
lot
of
us
have
long
history
in
w3c
and
I.
Think
more
to
the
point.
It
is
they're
ignoring
the
elephant
in
the
room
in
a
lot
of
these,
because
you
know
there's
a
lot
of
formal
objections
that
back
in
the
so
let
me
back
up
in
the
in
the
dawn
of
time,
Tim
berners-lee
was
the
benevolent
dictator
of
w3c,
and
when
there
were
judgment,
calls
to
be
made,
he
made
them.
G
You
can
agree
or
not
with
his
calls,
but
he
he
he
made
them
now.
It
is
essentially
political
process
or
something
called
a
formal
objection.
Council
that
gets
created
from
the
tag
and
the
and
the
a
b
and
and
and
then
there's
a
bunch
of
wrangling
about
who's.
G
You
know
who
should
recuse
themselves
and
I,
don't
know
I
find
it
a
total
mess,
but
the
wiser
people
and
I
agreed
to
it
so,
but
anyway,
without
actual
language
in
the
process
guiding
how
people
are
to
make
the
Judgment
call
about
whether
they're
sufficient
interoperable
independent
implementation
experience.
G
You
know
it's
just
going
to
be
a
political
mess.
Every
time
somebody
somebody
objects
so
I
think
there
is
a
a
need
to
have
a
fairly
well
there's
a
need
to
not
just
ignore
the
elephant
in
the
room
and
keep
arguing
about
the
instances
without
without
agreement
on
the
principles.
G
G
There's
something
to
be
said
for
that
I
mean
because
but
yeah
it's
not
really
aligned
with
my
personal
priorities
these
days,
but
yeah
I
mean
I.
I
walked
this
road
at
Microsoft
as
they
went
from.
Oh
no,
we
can
and
be
involved
in
open
source.
So
we
are
going
to
double
down
on
on
standards
and
then
they,
you
know
they
sort
of
they're.
G
Now,
with
the
other
end,
while
they
barely
pay
attention
and
w3c
as
far
as
I'm
I'm
I
can
tell
so
anyway,
I
like
to
be
part
of
the
conversation
not
sure
I
want
to
go
to
to
Spain.
To
be
the
you
know
the
front
person
but
but
yeah.
A
So
it
sounds
like
on
this,
and
what
I'm
gonna
do
is
just
to
bring
it
to
action.
I'm
going
to
take
the
standards
label
agenda
label
off
of
this
issue,
because
we
we
don't
need
to
bring
it
up
every
meeting
but
I'm
going
to
ask
Toby
myself
Michael
champion
and
anybody
else
who
wants
to
talk
about
that
can
of
worms
to
discuss
a
little
bit.
Yes,
I'll
put
that
label
on
the
issue.
Good
idea.
G
A
A
All
right,
the
other,
the
last
hopefully
very
quick
hit
and
just
to
confirm
because
it
didn't
I,
didn't
have
a
ton
of
time
to
watch.
A
All
of
the
the
meeting
from
last
week
sounds
like
we
had
agreements
from
this
group
to
make
Toby
the
new
OSI
rep,
with
the
understanding
that
Toby
will
focus
on
bringing
the
openjs
communities
into
the
policy
discussions
that
OSI
tend
to
take
a
leadership
role
on
and
that
the
action
here
is
really
for
us
to
figure
out
Toby,
I,
suppose
what
we
need
to
do
to
let
the
OSI
know
that
you're
you're,
our
you're
our
delegate
now
is
there
anything
else
that
you
need
to
make
that
happen
into
other
than.
F
I
mean
I
was
going
to
reach
out,
but
I
wanted
the
pull,
requests
to
be
merged
and
I
actually
don't
have.
It
has
been
approved
enough
times,
but
I
don't
have
merge
rights
on
this
map
of
the
tree
and
then,
like
you
know
a
week
and
a
half
past
they're,
just
like
okay,
well,
I'm,
just
gonna
wait
for
Tuesday
and
so
essentially
that's
what
I
was
waiting
for
and
I'm
just
gonna
ping
them
and
ask
them
like
what
to
do
I.
Imagine
there's
like
a
mailing
list.
They
have
to
put
me
on
yeah.
A
Okay,
cool
all
right
after
this
meeting
I
will
I
will
take
notes.
So
it's
clear
that
this
was
the
site.
You
know
the
and
and
merger
PR
and
okay,
all
right.
So
that's
224
that'll
be
done.
A
And
now
on
to
the
remaining
bigger
substantive
issues,
233
was
also
discussed
during
the
last
meeting.
That
is
the
part
of
the
of
the
meeting
and
the
recording
that
I
have
not
had
a
chance
to
watch
yet
and
because
there
wasn't
I
didn't
have
notes
to
follow.
A
This
is
233
to
discusspackage.jsonstandard
is
standardization
and
governance,
I
suspect,
Darcy
Jordan?
A
number
of
you
were
probably
really
active
in
that
call,
and
I
will
go
back
and
I
will
finish
watching
this
and
all
that
sort
of
thing,
but
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we're
tracking
next
steps
action
items
like
what
what
the
status
is
so
does
anybody
want
to
do
me
a
solid
and
summarize
so
that
I
can.
E
Another
dollar-
oh
I,
was
not
in
that
call.
Unfortunately,
I
missed
that
call,
but
I
I've
been
following
up,
at
least
in
a
word
doc,
that
I
see,
Toby
and
and
Ethan
have
been
working
on
I.
Think
generally,
trying
to
round
out,
like
the
problem
space
to
I,
think
Jordan's
comment
in
the
thread.
E
We
really
want
to
ask
the
question.
First,
the
standardization
makes
sense.
I
saw
lay
out
your
your
comment
as
well
about
you
know.
This
might
be
the
perfect
opportunity
to
to
bring
this
to
like
a
body
like
w3c
as
well
on
that
thread,
but
yeah
I,
don't
think,
there's
been
really
any
updates
here.
E
I
made
the
comment
that
we
need
to
have
folks
from
npm
enjoying
this
discussion,
because
technically
that's
the
origin
of
that
that
file
and
format
is,
is
npm
Inc,
and
so
you
might
want
to
tread
lightly.
There
there's
definitely
a
spidex
folks
or,
however,
you
say
that
spdx
I,
don't
know
I,
say
Spinx
butx
they've
also
historically
had
references
to
documentation
around
packet
Json,
which
I
made
a
note
of
as
well.
E
So
they
might
be
folks
who
want
to
pull
in
and
then
just
generally
I
think
think
we
should
be
considering
what
has
been
done
in
the
web,
manifest
space
and
what
necessarily
where
there's,
either
alignment
or
complete
completely.
You
know
differing
information.
E
That's
going
to
live
in
in
these
two
types
of
files,
but
there
to
me
historically,
that's
you
know:
I
saw
the
web
manifest
standardization
effort
for
web
extensions
and-
and
this
seems
like
a
similar
kind
of
effort,
so
there
might
be
some
learnings
that
can
be
pulled
out
of
of
the
group
that
did
that.
But
I
know
that
was
a
different
kind
of
vendor.
So
the
browsers
got
together
and
did
that
work.
So
in
this
case
we'll
probably
have
to
get
package
managers
and
runtimes
at
the
at
the
table.
I.
C
Think
the
additional
challenge
is
that
for
anyone
who
isn't
already
enthusiastic
enough
to
just
show
up
the,
they
have
to
be
kind
of
told
why
they
should
show
up
and
they
have
to
be
kind
of
lured
in
by
showing
them
why
it's
important
to
them
and
so
figuring
out
the
problem
space
and
what
problems
are
being
solved
is
really
important,
not
just
to
bring
everyone
to
the
table,
but
for
any
standards.
Body
they're
pretty
much
all
going
to
operate
on
first
like.
Why
are
we
talking?
C
If
you
don't
know
what
problem
you're,
solving
and
I
think
Ethan
has
the
right
instincts
here
that
there's
stuff
here
that
needs
standardization,
but
until
we
figured
out
how
to
word
Smith
it
like
it's,
not
just
not
going
to
be
effective,
so
I
think
that's
where
we're
at
now
is
all
trying
to
figure
out
ways
to
phrase,
probably
multiple
problem
statements
and
then
decide.
If,
in
fact,
standardization
is
the
answer
for
those.
F
Yeah
I
kind
of
want
to
protect
them
that,
like
strongly,
it
feels
like
it's
totally
unclear
what
real
value
standardizing
this
would
actually
provide
to
the
folks
who
we
who
need
to
be
around
the
table
if
this
has
to
have
any
teeth
right,
and
so
until
that
is
solved.
I
really
don't
see
that
going
on
places.
Frankly,
until
there's
like
real
clear
value
for
npm
and
no
then
like
the
few
key
players
in
the
space.
A
Any
other
lady
had
your
hand
up
for
just
a
second
any
other
thoughts
or
comments
on
this.
It
sounds
like
yeah
go
ahead.
D
Yeah
I
lowered
my
hand
because
Jordan
said
a
lot
of
the
things
that
I
wanted
to
ask,
but
basically
I
was
going
to
ask
that
what
are
the
use
cases?
What
are
the
user
needs
that
this
is
trying
to
cover
like
let's
standardize
packages,
though
Json
is
not
a
use
case,
I
can
I
think
I.
Guess
an
obvious
use
case
is
extensibility.
Standardizing
accessibility
points.
Is
there
any
other,
or
is
that
the
only
reason
to
standardize
it.
E
Yeah
I,
don't
really
know
where
this
is
coming
from.
As
a
previous,
the
manager
of
the
npmc
alive
team-
and
this
was
definitely
like-
maybe
there
was
concern
in
the
ecosystem
that
there
some
folks
are
stepping
on
each
other's
toes
and
and
so
maybe
to
your
point.
Leia.
It's
like
you
know,
let's
codify
some
keys,
common
keys,
I
think
is
where
Ethan's
heads
at
with
trying
to
make
it
easier
to.
E
You
know
make
sure
that
there's
there's
some
common
understanding
of
what
values
could
represent
in
this
manifest,
but
yeah.
It's
kind
of
tough,
because
the
ecosystem
pretty
much
anybody
for
the
last
decade
over
a
decade,
12
12,
13
years,
has
use
this.
This
file
in
various
ways
and
and
I
think
that
there
would
have
to
be
some
effort
going
into
looking
at
the
Legacy
ecosystem
usage
to
even
get
started
with
trying
to
standardize
this,
because
we
might
just
be.
D
Yeah,
it
sounds
like
you,
don't
just
need
buy-in
from
npm.
In
that
case,
you
need
buy-in
from
the
tool
authors
that
need
to
extend
package.json
like
if
it
was
standardized.
Would
they
follow
the
new
syntax,
because
the
new
syntax
is
likely
going
to
be
more
Awkward
to
minimize
conflicts?
Would
they
be
willing
to
to
have
that
trade-off?
Also?
Are
there
any
other
consumers
of
package.json
in
addition
to
npm
or
is
npm
like
basically,
the
only
consumer
until.
E
Yeah,
it's
huge,
it's
huge.
The
ecosystem
is
huge,
yeah
and,
and
so
like.
A
good
example
would
be
the
eslint
folks,
Nicholas
zakis,
like
zakis,
you
know,
has
you
know,
been
a
stock
Advocate
not
to
sort
of
like
standardize
or
bundle
as
build
into
runtime
or
or
so
it's
a
good
example.
I
I
think
you
know,
I've
heard
him
speak
about
problems
with
the
the
way
that
they
rolled
out
configuration
and
so
codifying,
I.
Think
and
locking
you
know
the
ecosystem
into
standards.
My
I
I
think
hurt.
E
You
know
the
way
that
it
naturally
has
evolved
to
sort
of
use
and
change
and
adapt
over
time.
The
usage
of
that
file.
D
Yeah
I
I
didn't
phrase
my
question
properly:
I'm,
sorry
about
that
I
I
I'm,
aware
that
different
tools
need
to
extend
package
Json
to
add
like
different
params
for
configuring.
These
tools,
as
I
guess,
I
was
just
wondering
if
there
are
other
consumers
of
package.json
as
a
whole
in
the
same
way
that
npm
does.
C
I
mean
there's
yarn
and
pnpm
right,
so
there's
all
the
clis
for
npm,
but
then
node
itself
reads
from
package.json,
as
does
BUN
and
Deno,
and
then,
as
you
said,
like
anything
in
userland
that
puts
configuration
packages
on
also
has
to
be
able
to
consume
it
and
there's
you
know,
there's
only
a
few
like
standardized
ways
of
reading
package
Json
and
only
one
or
two
of
those
come
from
npm.
So
it's
you
know
there's.
Definitely
there
are
definitely
some
problems
that
some
some
forms
of
partial
standardization
will
solve,
and
it's
just
the
heart.
C
The
work
ahead
of
us
is
I
think
just
to
phrase
that,
in
a
way
that
makes
it
clear
what
the
problems
are,
I
don't
think
it
will
ever
be
tenable
to
just
be
like
this
is
packaged
Json
and
anything
that
doesn't
match.
This
is
invalid.
Right,
like
there's
going
to
be
a
whole
lot
of,
like
top
level
keys,
are
almost
exclusively
going
to
be
a
wild
west,
except
for
a
few,
very
specific
ones
that
everyone
already
knows
not
to
touch,
and
so
it
would
be
more
like
new
top
level.
C
Keys
could
be
perhaps
added
and
defined,
but
in
the
same
way
as
you
kind
of
have
to
when
you
add
a
new
prototype
method,
you
have
to
check
web
compatibility.
I
feel
like
if
we
had
any
new
top
level
key.
You
have
to
just
go
check,
ecosystem
compatibility
and
anytime,
there's
overlap.
C
It's
a
huge
problem
so
like
there
is
even
just
coordinating
a
centralized
place
for
everyone
to
coordinate
is
still
there's
still
some
value
there,
but
that's
that's
that's
kind
of
not
that
can't
really
be
the
first
step
that
needs
to
be
like
there
needs
to
be
other
stuff.
That's
standardized,
I
think
before
people
will
come
to
the
table
and
coordinate
in
in
that
body.
C
Yeah,
that's
exactly
what
I'm
envisioning
that
that
there
will
be
a
very
short
finite
list
of
top
level
Keys
whose
values
have
strict
schemas,
but
that
anything,
not
anything
outside
of
that
list
would
probably
never
be
locked
like
preventable,
but
we
still
might
be
able
to
to.
C
If
we
achieve
that
for
some
of
the
more
commonly
used
Keys,
then
we
still
might
be
able
to
create
a
world
where
everybody
wants
to
go
check
with
this
centralizing
body
and
say
like
could
I,
maybe
standardize
my
new
top
level
key
here
and
then
everyone
else
would
be
paying
attention
and
the
conflicts
would
be
mitigated
to
some
degree.
But
that's
like
that's
like
10
steps
ahead
of
where
we
are
now
right.
D
That's
that's
exactly
what
I
meant
by
you
need
to
have
buy-ins
from
the
tool
authors,
because
this
is
going
to
be
far
more
Awkward
for
them
like
it's,
it's
much
easier
to
just
say
the
top
level
key
that
is
about
pslint
and
then
we'll
just
read
from
that.
A
F
C
F
A
All
right,
thank
you
so
much
for
this
summary
also
take
a
look
at
the
the
the
this
document,
but
it
sounds
like
this
is
another
one
that.
A
We
probably
will
want
to
again
we're
just
taking
this
back
to
Brass
tax,
take
the
label
off
of
this
issue,
but
we
also
want
to
keep
following
up
on
it,
so
it
may
just
be
a
like
someone
check
in
when
they
feel
like
this
document
is
pretty
close
and
come
back
to
the
group.
Toby's
was,
you
know,
did
you
have
your
head
up
to
smell
nope.
A
F
A
Okay,
so
we
we're
just
a
few
minutes
to
the
top
of
the
hour.
The
other
items
on
our
list
170
is
related
to
Toby's
PR,
so
we'll
close
that
the
terms
for
Smead
participation
is
certainly
more
than
a
five
minute
conversation,
so
we
will
table
that
any
other
business
before
we
close
today.
A
Any
requests
for
topics
for
next
week
so
so
I
will
ask
that
question
now,
so
that
you
do
not
have
to
remember
to
open
an
issue
yourself.