 Great, looks like we are live. Thanks everyone for joining another episode of the Cross-Project Councils, sorry, the OpenJS Foundation's Cross-Project Council meeting. Today is the second of February. Just dropping some links. I'll do my usual hi friends in the chat. And so yeah, thanks for joining. Do we want to start with any announcements? Anyone? Oh, announcements. So a reminder to everyone here, we're really excited to get as many, you know, folks in the community submitting CFPs for OpenJS World as possible. That's gonna be a remote like virtual event in June. And we've got a great programming team together. We've got some awesome keynotes that we've announced as well. We're gonna be doing some more like content and storytelling around some of the stuff you will expect to see in the program. But if anybody is interested in submitting a talk, we are doing an AMA tomorrow. If you are interested in getting involved in reviewing the CFPs, maybe you're not ready to submit a talk yet, but you want to help curate the program, we would love to have you if you want to get involved in the programming committee's work. That's also something that we would love to invite you to come do. So that's, we're really pushing on that. And we think it's gonna be an awesome event and come get involved as my message there. And I don't remember what time our AMA is in, but it's tomorrow. And I will be there. 9 a.m. Pacific. All of Eastern. Cool. Any other announcements? I think another one to share is we're starting our newsletter out to all of our JS Landia participants. So JavaScript Landia is going really well. We've been really excited about the interest and the support for that program. And so we're starting our badges and conversations and that sort of thing with that community now. So if it's something you want to get involved with, that's another space we'd love to have folks from the community hanging out. And I need to go to my list. I'm trying to do this from memory and I've got too many tabs open. Can you share some number about JS Landia already or not yet? I don't know what the latest is because there's a somewhat of a, at the moment there's currently a manual step, but it's like 150, 160 people. Oh, that's great. It was 200 a week and a half ago. Oh wow, Sam, way off. Yep, not asked. It's really wrapping up quite quickly. It's great. That's amazing, yeah. It's the auto join process is automated, but before we take back those names and put them on the website, we just give it a really quick preview. So we do update the website weekly, even though your joining process is immediate. Good job. Oh, another thing, this is the last little thing. We started a book club in the Slack workspace if you want to come be a book nerd with us, join hash book dash club and come geek out. Kind of books. Are we talking like no technical books or are they like more novels and stuff? So it seems like we're focused on largely nonfiction that has to do with open source, JavaScript standards, programming, tech culture, like that kind of vein. And people are just sort of talking about different, like Owen Buckley shared that he read like Linus Torvalds's autobiography. And so that's fascinating, you know? Isn't that over-sharing though? Pardon? Isn't that over-sharing admitting that you've read that? I don't think so. You're joking. It just seems like my wife's in one, but they choose like a short book, like a short, easy read. It just seems to be the other end of the spectrum where it's like, it's probably gonna, you wouldn't be able to do it like every week or anything, that's for sure. Yeah, I think that this is probably like, typically more dense, but also, you know. We're gonna start reading Snow Crash here at home, my young son. Maybe skip any parts that need to be skipped, but generally get into that. Anyway, put that on the book club list. Cool, anything else? Any other announcements or anything from the board or whatnot? Nothing comes to mind. I know Robin is scheduling some sessions with like various projects to get some input. And there's being one set up with the Node TSC and some of the other, like Think AMP and Webpack and so forth. I don't know, Robin, if you want to add anything on that one. Yeah, and thanks to Jory as well. We're doing an expedition, a road show, just to get some feedback from the projects, their TSCs and to share some sort of updates that you all have been doing in the CPC. And then kind of half of it is also getting feedback from the Standards Working Group. The Standards Working Group had a strategic planning session and really wanted some specific feedback from the projects. So hopefully we'll come back with some real good concrete bits of information. Do you have a timeline for this? Because I saw an email, I don't have good answers for this now, but I know that the AMP AC might have things to say. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Jory reached out to the AMP folks. Yeah, yeah, I know. So all of the, a lot of the larger projects so far, that are, they start tomorrow, I think happening over the next couple of weeks and then we'll start cascading as well. But yeah. I can announce that we have a new dog. He's a puppy Chihuahua. And I have a puppy lab in here too. So I keep muting because they keep wrestling and making crazy noises. Name, dog's name. This one is named Titan. And then the lab is Teddy and I mix their names up all the time. I like this tiny dog named Titan. Right? Yeah. He kisses my joke and mixes them up. Yeah. You know, people want to call Titan. We have a Chihuahua that's the loudest dog ever alive. We hear her about two city blocks away when she barks. It's like this piercing, screeching sound and she barks at anything that moves. Wow. Yeah. Hopefully you're better off than that. He's pretty chill so far. We'll see. So I'll do my best to run the meeting and manage puppies. Cool. Speaking of, we'll get into the agenda. The first issue is 7-1-1. Rename master branches. I'm gonna try to click into this. Yeah. You wanna watch? Let's see. Who opened this? Toby, do you wanna give us some comment or update or anything? I mean, updates. No, no, this just came up because this came up in AMP recently that we wanted to make sure that all of the AMP project was rid of using master instead of main. GitHub has now made that way easier. You can, in the settings, essentially change it's a one-setting thing that is just like I can't find the words. Just basically rename it. Yeah, no, it renames it but it also rebases all of the pull requests. Yeah, it retargets all the pull requests and updates all the branch protections as well. But what it doesn't do, however, is fix all of the infra that assumes master as the main branch which some infra does and some doesn't. It depends, right? Yeah, if you have some GitHub actions that might... It also won't update links that are like even though it will redirect them in most cases it won't update links that are hard-coded to have master in them. But if you change them to have capital head then it will no longer care what the default branch name is and so that can be landed prior to the change and should be. Okay. It's only when infra like explicitly needs a branch name is not using it directly in the Git CLI that you can't use head. And then that's trickier. You have to like kind of coordinate it with the tool, with GitHub's tool. And so... So go ahead. Yeah, so anyway, the point was just to say that we should do this at the CPC level because it's fairly straightforward to do. Then we should do this at the organization level for OpenJS would be my belief. And then we should also see if there's... How we can help the projects do that? Yeah, I think specifically for the like our projects I don't think there's that much activity that it would really be a major impact. I did it for one of the ones in the node project node add-on API last week. Haven't heard any complaints yet. So I'd be tempted to just like do it and then fix things up because I don't think there'll be a severe impact for us and it's probably good to just do it. I think for everything under our org, we should like it's just click a button and it's fine. When I think for projects, the challenge is that anyone who doesn't like... There's two challenges. One is that it creates a timeline entry on every PR when it retargets them. So people get actively notified that we're renaming it. So on a large project like node that would attract a lot of trollish behavior, that's what it will do. And then the other side is that if it didn't notify then you would have no way of knowing you need to update your local branches and even the notification isn't very clear about how to do that. So anyone who is in the middle of a pull request is going to potentially be confused and need to switch their branch around. It's all like relatively straightforward but GitHub doesn't like surface exactly what would be needed to make it a non problem. So like NVM is not that big a deal. I have like dozens of pull requests but node has like hundreds or thousands or something. The projects are a much different thing than our orgs. Like I was just saying, like for our org there's nothing that's that high traffic that I think we just do it. Node is talking about this. The default for new repos has already changed for every org now. So unless they explicitly went into an org and forced the default to stick it master, all new repos from now on will be main unless they've changed that. Always a node. That's great. The node project has been talking about making that move and has been moving over a bunch, you know, bit by bit. So I think that's well underway. The node one, as you say, maybe the last one though, just once we're comfortable having switched everything over and figure there's, we've found the gotchas and stuff. Yeah, from the amp perspective, like every rep or except the main one has moved and the main one is to move this quarter but it is a really, I mean, a significant infra work to get that done and to make sure that everything continues to work in CICD pipelines. Now it might be a good blog post to share with other projects inside or outside the foundation and then also kind of gives the contributors heads up. Yeah, that would be great. I think communicating about this would be great. I think if there are lessons learned that can be shared broadly or shared inside of the org. I think that's also useful. You know, it's a really small thing when you think about it but it is also a sign of actually caring about these issues. And so I think it's also worth doing for that reason. So does anybody have any concern? Like we have 14 under the OpenJS org if we just go and switch those and then, you know, there might be some impact but I think we could fix that up afterwards. Is that? The only thing that I would recommend doing first is just quickly grepping through each repo and seeing if there's any occurrence of the word master. If there are none, then GitHub's new flow means that there's no technical barriers. Just click the switch, right, and fine. And if there are some, you can probably update them all to be head and then after that's landed, just click the switch and it's fine, right? And it's only when there's complex infra that like Toby's talking about that it might be a slower change. Which I don't even remember. Even what you've described though is somebody's gonna have to block a bigger piece of time to do that. Oh, you can type slash and type master and then select in the dropdown menu in this organization and it'll be, it's a relatively quick thing to find. Like you can just grep the whole org at once with GitHub.com. But yeah, somebody does have to do it. Somebody actually has to, you know, maybe block out for a couple hours versus somebody could say, oh, I'll take 10 minutes and I'll rename them all. So if we think we should, I'm just saying if we actually wanna make it happen sooner than later, I personally, I think be comfortable that we just rename them because the downside, I don't know that it's gonna be that big even if we miss things, right? And separately in terms of like references to master those should redirect anyway, right? Yeah, that's true. So we can fix those up afterwards. Yeah, so the order doesn't exactly matter. We can fix it up after, that's fair. I'm just trying to say like, you know, hey, I could go and change three of them. And if I have three, 10 minutes, but I can't go through and grep and do all the search and that kind of stuff. So if we're comfortable, you know, when everybody, somebody has a chance, just go in and change. Looking now there's a bunch. Those 79 code results was master in it for the org. Some of which need to be changed, but not all of which some of it's pointing to external things. Right. But I think that could be a follow on to actually renaming it them themselves. If it's gonna redirect as I understand. So that was just my suggestion. If we can actually just do the rename, let's not block on something more complicated and then do the next piece. Do you want to formally approve this? The charter has a couple of mentions of master in the links. So we'll need to have that done. Does this complicate what we're doing at all? Can we just do these sorts of changes to the charter without asking the board? I think the read, well, the redirects should fix that. I think when we do them later, it's to me that would fall under the typo, other kind of thing where we just give them a notification because there's no, there's no substantive change there. So I, if we rename, if we rename the main branch, it's now a typo that it's pointing to the wrong. Cool, yeah. I dropped a link to a HackMD file if we want to like start to capture some suggestions, some tips, some things to be worried about and efforts to get a blog post together. If anybody wants to drop anything in there. Cool. So yeah, Michael, were you gonna just go in and rename them or? Like I'll go rename a few. Basically what I would say is if anybody has a few minutes, just go in and rename a couple and I'll, you know, I'll do the same and if we all do that, we'll have them all done by next week, right? Yep. Cause it probably takes like five minutes to pop or something. So if you got free 10 minutes between meetings, do two of them or something. Yep. And then maybe tag in, you know, basically go into that issue and say, Hey, I just did this one. Yeah, that's a good idea. All right. Sorry. Do we have anyone that's going to be leading the blog post if we want to do this? Rachel, is that, does that fall on you by default? Or like, I don't know. I mean, I think it's useful. So I think if we want to do it, we should say so. And if we don't, we shouldn't have a draft. I think, I mean, I think it's really helpful content, especially for other folks who are trying to figure out how to do this. Sounds like it's a really easy thing. So I think my recommendation would be for us to kind of capture, like Robin said, tips, tricks, things to look out for and just kind of create this helpful thing. Like this is easy to do and this is how we did it. And I'm happy to ping this group to say, okay, how did y'all do it? And then I can kind of glean some of that and help shape the blog. Is that helpful? Awesome. If you take the lead on it, it's great. Yeah. Yeah. And again, it doesn't have to be pretty. Joe, with the hacker document, just start throwing mud on the wall and we can make it pretty. Yeah, absolutely. Sorry. Yeah. All right, cool. Great, great, great. So I think we got ways to move forward on that. And that's awesome. Moving on, next on the list is the primary CPC director election. Assuming I don't have a puppy thing to manage here which I kind of do. So we had said we were gonna open the vote today. I've got some interests expressed to me. So I've got that. I can, maybe we can make this kind of a last call and tomorrow morning I will drop the names in this issue and then request, quiet, request candidate statements and we can move on from there. There's the lab too. I don't know if you can see them. We kind of like to vote now, actually. Yeah, exactly. And then this one just keeps running across my desk. Yeah, so last call, we'll say, midnight or the morning or whatever, reach out to me or Dory if you prefer and we'll announce the names tomorrow. And yeah, like I said, ask for candidate statements. And then I think we're just going to have the vote open for a week and then go from there. So yeah. Can you say how many you have so far? Is it appropriate to say how many? It's, I mean, what we've communicated is that we'll be opening this today. So if you're extending it now, you're kind of rewriting the rule. So I don't think we have anything prohibiting you from revealing everything at this point. Does anybody have any objection to, I guess for one, the amount of people and for two, should we just get it started? I don't know. Well, it depends. It would depend if the number is low, if the number is one, then yeah, if we extend it and if the number is 10, like that tells us we should probably just get going on it. But the thing is, if you want to extend it, we can't do both extend it and get it started today because then that's not fair for the folks that are going to be there down the line, right? Yeah. So do we just open it up now? How about you say first the number? Yeah. I think it comes back to Emily's point. Like if, right, okay. So two. The number is dose. Yeah. And it's not my two dogs. Now that would be funny though. We could put one of them on the list and just see who's thing it is. Yeah. There have been a few movies to do that, but they don't end well. I was going to say, like, I don't see how that can end well, right? Yeah. Um, so, yeah. Um, we had talked about, you know, making like one last call today. Stop playing with that. Um, because I had only had one, but then someone else reached out. So now I have two. So, um, you know, I'm fine with whatever we want to do. We did say we would open it up today. So it is at a two candidates diverse. Um, yes. I mean, for what you can do is two candidates, you know. Yes, exactly. Right. There is some diversity in the two candidates. And that they are different people. Just... Very funny, Jory. They are both human. Neither of them are your dogs. So we would be out there at least. Was there like one dog and one person? Because that doesn't work. I would phrase it this way. If anyone at all objects to us opening this now, then we should delay at least until tomorrow. But if absolutely nobody objects, then we should open it now. Okay. Any objections? No? All right. So let's open it now. I can post in the issue after the meeting the candidates, but I'll share with you all now. Be careful that the two candidates are Tobi and Sarah. Okay. Those are indeed two different people. Congratulations. Hey. That's a difficult choice. They're both lovely people. So those are great options. Yes. Thank you for throwing your hats in. Yeah, for sure. Absolutely. Great. Okay. So I will post the names and a request for candidate statements after the meeting and we'll move forward. Ty, Teddy, quiet. Cool. Great. So that answers that. I was actually stressed out about that and now I feel great. Next up is improving diversity and inclusion at the OpenJS Foundation. We had a working session on this last week. I expect that we will do it again this week if I'm not mistaken. But would Tobi or Jory, anyone like to add any comment here? I mentioned you two because you're both in the issue comments. That's all. I'm sort of blanking on this to be very honest. I think what would do to speak next week again? Yeah. I think we're due to speak next week. I had shared some information on data points where we are today. Some of the data across the Linux Foundation. I think we're gonna dig in a little bit more. I think I committed, I could summarize some of the content that we covered. I think, I can't remember, somebody asked if they could have some pre-reading next time. So I'll have a goal to get that out early. What else? Yeah, so we... I'm sorry, I blanked. I did not understand this was a summary request. Yeah. You know. I think the summary is we made great progress last year, a lot from the bottoms up from the community. So thank you. But we still haven't reached the initial goals that we set out at the foundation that at least we have, that we report out to our board of directors. So still a lot of work to do, but yeah, we made a lot of great progress. Yeah, we made a lot of great progress. And last week on the working session, we had a really good working session. A lot of good ideas and conversation and thoughts. And I felt like it was the beginning of the beginning. And so I look forward to working more on this. And I thought we had discussed that we would do it again next working session. So we can kind of... Formalize that. What's that? Formalize that. I mean, just say that this is what we're gonna do. Yeah, yeah. I think there's a thing in the agenda to do that at the end of the meeting, but let's just do it now. As any, I'm all for doing it again next week. That's great. Which would be two, two PM. So the same time as this meeting next week, which is 1900 UTC. That makes sense to folks. It does. I think we had meeting notes during that call, did we? I'm gonna say, could we maybe link those? Would that be appropriate from the issue? Or? Yeah, I don't see why it wouldn't be, but yeah, I'm not sure where they are, exactly. That's my point. Let's do that again. Actually, no, actually they are in the working session meeting issue. So that's maybe confusing. And this is one of the things that I'm hoping to kind of work out is like, how do we manage these sorts of working sessions and issues and stuff? But here's the actual issue for the working session. And that has a link to the notes. I found that, thank you. Yeah, yeah. I'm gonna link them back from the main one. Yeah, please, please. And I guess I should create an issue for next week's working session and do the same kind of thing. I'd love to try and make that session a little bit more focused. I think we covered a lot of ground about, sort of the state of the universe on this topic for our projects. And I think I was really struggling during the call to identify like an example of a core problem to sort of kind of reason about. And so I'd love to maybe brainstorm what some of those are. So we can, if we can do that more. Yeah, I agree. And that's what I kind of mean. Like it felt like the beginning of the beginning, like we were really kind of putting a lot of thoughts and ideas out there that would be good to kind of focus in on some stuff. Is that something we should just plan to do at the beginning of the meeting and work through at the meeting? Or Jory, are you thinking we should, start to kind of figure out what some of those things are before the meeting? And I think that can be part of like the meeting topic. One thing that we talked about just now and this call is, for example, and you know, the switching. Right, exactly. And like, so is there like some kind of like a problem spaces? Let's go sort of do some kind of audit and help projects move over to that more inclusive naming, you know, patterns or something. Yeah, I think another question we had is, do we set goals for the CPC and the foundation or do we set them for the project? So as we do our expedition tour with the projects, I'll be curious to get their thinking on that as well. Yeah, I think another thing too that we talked about was like defining what we even mean by diversity. You know, so I think getting something like that in place would be a great thing to have before we even really get into some of the other things. So all right, great. So those are some things to think about and we can, you know, flesh it out further in the meeting. If anybody wants to talk beforehand or Slack or whatever, feel free to reach out to me. Quiet. All right, moving on. Next issue is 673, Google Summer of Code 2021. Brian's not here. I don't know if there's much to talk about on this one right now. And he and I kind of briefly talked about this, but those will be any project that's interested in requesting and working with the Google Summer of Code program, it'd be great to start working on that plan now. It's been something that the last couple of years has snuck up on us. And so we haven't really been able to give projects the kind of heads up. So that's one thing to be mindful of today. Great. Thank you. Cool. So moving on, the next item is Remove the Growth Stage. This is a pull request 650. Toby, do you have any updates or thoughts on this? I know that there's this pull request as well as the work in the project status repo. So if my, I'm recording correctly, I had to check was the AMP TSC that they were okay. It was removing the growth stage they were. Sorry, I've deleted the issue with this. The pull request in the project status repository, I think is ready to be landed. And I think that this pull request in the CPC repo is also ready. It might be that we need to do a double check to see if there are reference to growth projects elsewhere that we need to update. I'm not sure that that was done. So that would be the only sort of like thing that's left over. You have muted, Joe. Thank you. Sorry. I keep having puppy issues. Great. Yeah. So we just go through and figure that out. If there's any references and then we think we can land these. Can't we just land them now and fix it later? Happy to do that. Yeah. I'm all for that. I'm the other place I'm aware of. Reference to growth stage projects are in the project status repo and on the OpenJS website. Beyond that, it's possible that growth projects have referenced themselves in such a way on their own materials. In the read me of the CPC too, I think, but I'm not sure. I think we just discussed the master to me. Change effectively doing the same sort of thing. So I say we fix it later. This thing has been hanging around for ages. Yep. I agree. Our primary website will have to do updates as well. So plus when it folks and then we can just like fix whatever breaks after the case. It's not a big deal anyway. Right. So is there something really we need to actively do? Is there something really we need to actively do before we can merge these? I like if they're not plus ones enough, then yes. If not, I don't think so. I'm certain that plus ones, plus one enough even if the specific issues do not have that recorded on them given how much we've talked about this and given how little or none resistance we have to this idea remain. Sorry, give me one second. Can someone bring that doll back to me? I'm going to need it. Shall we move on? Can you chair Joy? Yeah, let me pick up for Titan and Joe. So the next issue on our agenda is issue 632, which is provide implementation guidance for the DCO slash CLA. This is Brian. This is also Brian. Brian had some very promising updates, as you may recall, Brian was working on some patches to the DCO bot that we wanted to see. And I think that that actually has been successful or very nearly successful. And so we should be having a lot more to say on this issue in the next few weeks for those who may want to use the DCO. So that's not much, but it's just a report to remind everyone we like the DCO bot. We wanted to see some changes for our projects. We think that those are basically in. And we should have stuff to share with everybody in a few weeks. Cool. Thanks, Joy. I can jump back in, as I think we really only have one more issue here, the update, the onboarding checklist templates. It's a pull request from the project status repo. This Toby opened four weeks ago. Was it not merged already? No, it's still open. I've been wanting to hit the merge button on that for a couple of weeks, but I wasn't sure. So I didn't. Sorry. I'm going to do it right now. Squash and merge. Yeah, Jory, in the future, I would just add on a comment that says, hey, if I don't hear any complaints by this Friday or set some deadline. Too bad. So sad. I merged it anyway. Well, it's kind of like if you're pretty sure that it's fine, but just not quite certain enough, I usually just say, hey, if I don't hear anything by Friday at CPC, this looks like it's good to merge or something. This is a suggestion. We'll be more aggressive about it. I usually don't add the so sad part, but the. No, I think I already added the changes to some of the new onboarding entries manually. So I'm kind of surprised that that was not merged before I did that. Apologies. Cool, it's merged. Jory, you've got an old pull request open here for documentation if you're really wanting to merge stuff. Well, I do. But that is not. I need to go back to that and really pick up where I left off. I kind of got the first couple of checklist items documented, but we were still kind of tweaking some of the requirements of the checklist. So I decided I'd better wait. But anyway, the goal of that eventual PR, which is sort of, I guess now I'm admitting this isn't a best practice because it'll be a big PR as opposed to a little one, is to provide more clarification for projects that are going through onboarding about what each step means and what needs to be done and what we're looking for and that kind of thing. So. Cool. All right. That kind of wraps things up. And I don't know, does anybody have anything else they want to get into in the last eight minutes? I could give that time back to you all. And we could divvy up some repos and go switch from master to main since you have done all of them, except for the cross project council one talking. Thank you, Michael. Yeah, that's what I can do right after. So, so, but then there's still the going and fixing up any references. So if people can grab one and look for references to master and replace them, that would be the next step. Great. Thanks. The last thing, you know, to end on here is like for the rest of the week, you know, there's some stuff happening Wednesday, Thursday and Friday, Wednesday, we have the AMA. So, you know, help with that and sharing that out. Thursday is our program committee meeting for OpenJS World. And then Friday, we're pulling the JavaScriptlandia working group back together to work on the next phase of projects for JSlandia. So any extra time you may have this week for OpenJS Foundation programs, we've got it, you know, we've got lots of things to do. So come join. Thank you, Jory, agreed. Cool. All right. Well, let's call it a wrap. I appreciate everybody taking the time. I'll go get the election started as well. So maybe, Jory, you and I can chat real quickly after the meeting to get that moving. And we'll pass you. Cool. All right. Thanks, everybody.