 All right, sorry everybody. I don't know how computers work. Hello and welcome to today's edition of our standard working group meeting. We had a few action items that I turned into the agenda for this week. You can pop on over to the Google Doc there in the chat to see. And I also put in a link to the previous goodness. You could go and just read the discussion from last time if you so chose. We really came up with four different things we could do to kind of scope and make some progress on this set. Fairly large bucket of topics. The first was that Richard and I proposed doing a basically a call for questions or comments or discussion prior to TC 39 or TC 53 meetings or even W3C meetings anything that we felt like, you know, we're ostensibly able to participate in as a foundation and to gather comment and see what projects might be interested in bringing forward to those meetings. So as an action from that, there wasn't obviously any TC 39 or TC 53 meetings in the last two weeks, but we do need to come up with that list of meetings and for TC 39 they're usually planned well in advance as RTC, sorry W3C meetings. But that's sort of what is needed to get that ball rolling I think. Has anybody had any time to think about, you know, maybe what would be helpful in terms of framing such a meeting or what kind of outreach you would like to do ahead of those kinds of meetings to our group? I haven't had any time to put some thought into it, but one thing that comes to mind is I've been thinking about this as, you know, what do we bring for our projects and our communities to these working groups and, you know, committees and whatnot. And a thought that I just had is perhaps even, you know, the flip side of that additionally that we can be there as a resource for those groups. I mean, as for, you know, for our communities, but to be a conduit back to our communities and our projects, you know, if there are specific things like, I mean, I would imagine this is a bad example, but, you know, if they're time zone stuff and we would bring it back to, you know, to make sure that any time zone related to projects, you know, like, not the, I don't know, it's moments in our org. Yeah, moments in our org, message format, globalize. Yeah, like anything that we could, you know, bring back to them and make sure they're aware of. I imagine most of them are probably already involved and are aware, but just I'm thinking about it as being a two-way street as well. I like the idea of like, certainly reaching out around a topical area on like, date time is one that you throw out as a great example. There's obviously one or two standards. And that's certainly, certainly some of our projects were created to address gaps, though, you know. Yeah, internationalization, things like that. But anyway, that's just a thought. It's not a one-way street. I agree. I was gonna say, generally I find this this kind of conversation or perhaps even thought exercise really interesting because I'm a delegate for IBM and I'm, you know, trying to figure out ways that I am bringing benefits to IBM by being a part of these meetings and the work. And so I just find it really interesting to try and work through what value we can bring back to the projects. Yeah, and that's part of the thing I think we're trying to figure out is like, what exactly is the value to a project for participating as separate from like the company? Like IBM, it's much more straightforward. IBM has a business interest in these different things, but an open source project, you know, may not have that kind of like capitalist motive. Yeah. Cool. Well, so I think I think the action item here is fairly simple and straightforward. Let's just try and gather that list and maybe use that to start a calendar. I think a calendar of events was another thing that we had talked about being cool to have. So perhaps we can develop that for the rest of the year and then try and get the bones of that started for 2020 on that issue. All right. That one was easy. Let's see. Next item. Next action item was to create an issue for a representative selection process proposal. And so that we could, and this is a proposal we could create to take through the CPC staging process. We don't have this yet, but Sendil is already open some issues that are certainly related and supported, supportive of that. So I may actually just copy your cut that down. Do you want to talk about issues, the related issues 13 and 14, which are the follow up action items here? Yeah, I think. Okay. So the very first question that pops out of the mind when we talk about selecting a rep was like what kind of responsibilities or the requirements that should have. I think we have to consider how to handle the conflicts that comes in the meetings or whether the person has to be related to a project or he has to represent the overall base foundation as a whole. I think those are the few questions that we have to answer or we have to consider before even starting or looking for an individual who can be at it. I think that's what issue 13 is all about. It is exactly like layout requirements that is required from a representative that we are going to send to all those meetings to represent this open space project as a whole. So I've just listed down two things that we have discussed on the meeting and probably if we can, if somebody has anything more, they can add it in the issue or they can discuss it over here. Any other things that the group things that has to be inside there as a basic requirement for a representative? So I think that the, oh, I should hop the issue open. I think I saw earlier where I'm not sure if it had, oh dang, what did I just do? There we go. I think another issue that or another requirement is going to be that the person is from a foundation project. So that possibly that they are like a regular member of the CPC or you know that they're somebody who is known to an active in an existing OpenJS foundation project and not just like, you know, randos on the internet. It makes sense really. Okay. And I think another thing we would probably want to assess is whether that representative is also qualified to be a representative that's safe like, you know, like, I'll pick on Joe. In Joe's case, Joe would be qualified to represent IBM as a member at TC39. Because IBM is a member of ECMA, who would probably want to prefer a candidate who was not also, whose organization was not also a member of the standards org. I think we've discussed that as something we all kind of agree is ideal, but I just want to make sure that I am not making Just to add one more thing over there. I think we haven't concluded anything on that. We just discussed about it and we said like, we have to present it to CPC and then probably we can transfer it later. But basically, the question still reminds like whether the particular person who will be representative of the standards group, will he be, if he is part of any other, he's a delegate from any other way, whether do we have to construct him as a representative? I think the qualification, we have to add this as one other thing that we have to discuss and probably I think that has to be answered. That's an interesting point. So to capture what I think you're saying, if in the case of, again, sorry, Joe will pick on you because you're right here. Joe is also, Joe's going to say at TC39 meeting as a representative of IBM, can he also wear the foundation hat at that table even if he's not the appointed open JS foundation representative? Does that capture what you're getting at? Yes, exactly. So Maggie Pint has represented both Microsoft and Moment really via the JS foundation. She's always just simply made a point of like clearly mentioning at some point during the meeting which one she's representing that day. And typically it's not her employer, it's foundation. So I've seen that work successfully. But I've also something that should also be considered is that the in the past foundations joining ECMA has been met with some resistance because ECMA is concerned about companies getting a backdoor into standards processes without paying their fees. And in practice, that hasn't been a problem, but they're kind of concerned with the theory of it. So they would actually probably prefer that delegates from foundations be members in their own right as well as a general rule. I'm not entirely sure that that's the case. I'm going to put on my ECMA executive committee hat, which I wear on behalf of Boku. And just share that my interpretation in our committee meetings is that that is largely more fud because it's not really clear what from from ECMA's perspective what the OpenJS foundation or other foundation like a software foundation like us does and could possibly provide. They're not it's such a small staff in a group that needs so infrequently that, you know, frankly, we just need to come to the table with, you know, with some clarity around what we're doing and how we're doing it and how it's supportive of ECMA's overall mission. And they're going to be totally fine with it. Yeah. And I recognize that for ECMA, that's more of a historical fear and, you know, thing and less of a real real issue. But there may be other standards bodies that that have those concerns as well. And so that doesn't mean they're not surmountable, just something to be aware of. Yeah. So I mean, I think I think what we're getting at though is super important, you know, point to capture, which is that we are being very cognizant of the of not eroding ECMA's business model by facilitating some kind of surreptitious like backdoor participation in this particular group. And I think that that's that we consider that a concern would be would go a long way to addressing whatever worries they would have. What other requirements would we think about here? You know, I think Jordan, you pointed out Maggie. I've always thought Maggie is an excellent committee participant. Well, this is so this is also something that's occurred to me. It's a little self-serving. But at the moment I'm between jobs and will be attending TC39 in September on my own dime. And like would be happy to have the to represent the foundation and have them, you know, pay for my flight and stuff. But like, I don't know where the how this fits into the things we've been talking about about, can you wear two hats or where's there a conflict and you know, and is there a conflict by me suggesting it or I don't know. But thought I would throw that in there as well. Well, I mean, I think that that topic of related to like requirements and what what might be needed to know for what we would need to know or what a representative would need to know for onboarding is like the the process through which a representative, be it Jordan or whomever is reimbursed and what kinds of things they're reimbursed for. So there's a bit of that like operational. Right. Well, and expectations, right? Like I would like if assuming that were the case, right, where let's say that all played out and I was then representing the foundation, I would want to know what if any constraints and requirements were on me. Are there things I should advocate for that I might not otherwise or the things I should not advocate for that I might otherwise do? Are there is there like what responsibilities will I have? Do I have to write up a summary afterwards? Like, yeah, things like that. And like it whoever a representative is, we should to any standards body, we should be clear about all those things like reimbursement. Is there a party line they have to toe to in any direction? And like, you know, what sort of kind of homework do they need to do it as well? I think on the issue of like a requirement in terms of like, like post meeting, follow up obligation, right? I don't think it's too much to ask to have those people draft a either a blog post for the Open JS Foundation blog or a email summary for the projects list, or some kind of presentation for the CPC meeting about, you know, what was covered and you know, try and focus that from the angle of this is what would be, this is what might be interesting to foundation projects. Yeah, it's certainly not too much to ask, we should, we would just want to probably be clear about that at the beginning. Yeah. I think we also capture those things on the next issue that we want to talk about. That adds the roles and responsibilities for the representatives and things from that. Yeah. I'm just thinking about I have both of these issues open at one time. That's cool for me. Let's see, their roles and responsibilities. I mean, I think to Jordan's point about, you know, travel, there should be, for planning purposes and long term support from a budget perspective, it's probably a good idea to be able to say, you know, there's like an upper limit on this, like, you know, we'll send you to the, we'll send the JS Foundation, Open JS Foundation representative to TC39 in New York, but you know, you're not going to, we're not going to put you up at the Waldorf Astoria or something, you know, ridiculous and, or that there's some kind of impacts. And things like that. What was that? Oh, like, like, we're not going to pay for you to stay an extra weekend and have fun, that sort of thing. Right. That also seems like something that's, you know, we could use some sort of big hand wavy language to just be like, expenses must be reasonable. And then like, you know, we have some intent of just making sure it's like, you know, market rates, but on the like less luxurious spectrum and, you know, things like that. I feel like Node Foundation has successfully done that a lot with its like travel expenses and stuff for sending people to conferences and things. Yeah, I agree. And the reason I'm just sort of thinking about this is right now to square it with what is currently in place. Since the JS Foundation and the Node Foundation merged, the budget is just the travel fund for Node. So what we'd want to be able to do is say to the CPC, for example, we expect to send, you know, here's the calendar of events in the world of standards. And we expect to send someone to 10 events or send, you know, some group of people to 10 different events at a cost of $2,500 a pop. So that's, you know, X amount from the travel budget that should be sort of thought to be allocated or requested in addition to the travel fund for per standard specific travel for a specific person. Miles, I think he's waiting for a promotion. Oh, Miles, I'm so sorry. Yeah, promote to panelists. I'm sure he has something to say. Miles. For what it's worth, all those messages came in a span of about 35 seconds. I was just acting like the iPad is a big number 20 on there. Miles, do you have comments? I'm not so mad. I'm just curious. I'm so sorry. I actually wasn't even paying attention. What are we talking about? Yeah, we're talking about just right now issue number number 13 and number 14. Okay, bye Jordan. Thanks so much for joining. And this is the idea of like, what are we, if we were going to start to craft a proposal for the CPC process about a selecting a standards representative. Somebody do represent us on behalf of the Open New York Foundation to 239. What are some of the requirements we would have with that individual? And what are some of the expectation that we might need to make sure are made more explicit? And we got off onto the tangent of travel and setting expectations around that budget and stuff. Yeah, so I guess like one question would be if the standards team would want to request their own budget to maintain for this. Separate from the travel fund. And I think that's a good question. I will feel right now that it's probably wisest to say, you know, these are the like, let's take a look at the calendar of events. And they we think it's important to send an OpenJS representative to every TC39 meeting and TPAC for example. So that's like 11 events and or however many events at, you know, $2,500 a pop, then go talk to the CPC about whether that's like something that should be just requested as an addition to the travel fund or earmarked in the travel fund for in the current travel fund for. So I mean, and I'm going to take a slightly different approach. The travel fund is slowly becoming much more about the collaborator summit and collaborator summit specific. And I know that there were concerns as we're going through the travel fund about whether like whether or not other funds could become available. And it's just something that needs to be worked through and there needs to be, I think, an example of making these kinds of requests, getting this kind of budget approved by the board was, I don't think and I, please correct me if I'm wrong, that a anyone needs to go and use this fund immediately or alternatively be that like perhaps this could even be framed as like a 2020 budget that we're starting to request now. I think that it could be a really, really great way of leading and figuring out the kinks in the process of getting something like that approved. I would be fine to think about this as sort of early exploration for a 2020 budget request. I think that's reasonable. I mean, it's August and I think if we work on our calendar and work on this process like it seems like we could get that done and export that way. I just wouldn't want to, I don't want to spook anybody by saying, by coming in and saying like, and now we would like $40,000, please. Yeah. And I think that like we could probably come up with like a range. I think also we do have reps that are maybe also corporate reps that could maybe kind of wear double hats. We maybe wouldn't need the budget or the entire budget. So we may be able to just like grab something out of the air like 10 grand, just say that's the budget and play it by ear from that and see if that's enough. Although I do know that like, you know, T-PAC's in Japan this year. So you very easily dip a huge chunk into that just for T-PAC. But, you know, just because we ask for a budget doesn't mean we can't ask for more, especially once we've done it, once it's really easy to do it again. So related to that point and because you joined a little late miles, I was actually thinking that it would be interesting to see what your response was to this. We were talking about one of the requirements, like in terms of requirements for that representative, whether we should require that, you know, first off that the the elected representative for us at a given meeting is a member of the CPC and a voting or a regular capacity or in some way clearly identifiable as a member of a project. And then the second piece was whether that person, whether we would prefer a person who did not already have some kind of organizational affiliation that would say their company is already a member of ECMA, for example. Would we prefer the candidate who does not have, whose company does not have an organizational membership? So, mixed feelings. So having someone who can go in and be effective takes time and relationship building with in the standards groups already. And we can mentor people to build up on that. And those are probably like good to be people who have not already gone. But like if we have specific things that we need to do and specific kind of agendas that we have coming out of the gate, I think it would be helpful to have people who have experience. But, you know, this always could be balanced and we can find a way to balance it out. I think a lot of people in that room, like myself for example, are already entering into that space with multiple hacks and have to figure out how to juggle that. I'm less concerned about people having to have or not having affiliation being kind of one of the criterias of how we decide who goes. Regarding CPC versus non-CPC, this actually aligns with something else that I wanted to bring up. I won't squirrel on it too much, but we've kind of been loosely using the term working group to describe some of these kind of initiatives that we're spinning up under the CPC. We have not done any work on actually chartering them, which, you know, is a concept from Node and we can decide that we don't want to do this. But if we wanted to if we wanted to move forward with having kind of official working groups somewhat modeled after Node, if the standards group was chartered by the CPC, our group would be chartered with kind of making these decisions. And we could make a governance model that dictates, you know, what are the requirements for being a representative. I don't personally think that being a CPC rep or a CPC voting rep should be a requirement. But I do think that our group being chartered and officially delegated with handling, you know, this decision is something that we should do if we're going to be making those kinds of decisions. That's a really interesting point, Myles. That's a different way of like maybe like worrying about this, because I think what the way I've been going well to get this done, we our group should come up with a proposal that we put through the CPC process for these different pieces of like, you know, electing a standards person. But, you know, if this is something that instead the CPC would like to explicitly delegate by chartering us as a, you know, official kind of subcommittee as opposed to a ragtag band of misfits, which we totes are. Sorry to interrupt really quickly, but Richard Gibson needs to be promoted. Thank y'all. Then that would be, that would be good. Perfect. Thank you. Yeah. And I think like the biggest subtle difference between that would be like the CPC has a lot of other things that are already on their plate that they need to worry about. And what we're talking about is extremely domain specific. So I think we could just do that kind of blanket. Hey, here's a proposal to charter a standards working group. It would oversee this maybe even like our basic charter and governance is part of that proposal. And they stamp that. And once it's stamped, then like we are, you know, kind of certified to manage this ourselves, which includes everything to like how we manage membership, how we decide delegates, basically everything. Because if you go into the CPC charter, the CPC is chartered with handling this. And then if they in turn charter us, then it's kind of, you know, we own it. And with that also comes this kind of non hierarchy, hierarchy, I can't ever say that frickin word. It's because I hate hierarchy so much. But like it sets up this thing where it's much flatter, it's much more distributed. And we don't need to go like ask the CPC for permission every time we do something. And if in fact it makes it the thing where like the CPC kind of needs to consult with us to make any decisions that go in that space. And, you know, this does get a little bit, it is a little bit of like a mind mender, because I bet you the majority of the people at least in the room right now are already involved in the CPC. We will in turn approach it with very different hats. Well, Joe, what do you think is our chairperson of the CPC? I've been kind of splitting my attention a little bit. If I understand Miles' thought, I think it makes sense to, you know, have a charter stamp if that's where you're getting to. Do I understand that right? Yeah, I mean, the basis is let's put forward as opposed to put forward these specific processes to be owned by the CPC. Let's put forward a proposal to, you know, kind of confirm this group as being able to make decisions on these topics and manage it. And the way that it needs to be managed, which to Miles' point I think probably is different in a lot of ways and needs to be different in a lot of ways than the process that we use for the CPC. Yeah, I think that makes sense. Joe, I'm kind of bouncing with excitement because I'm realizing we may be able to be the first people to dog food your starter charter. And it would actually, I think, be really interesting to go through it and see, hey, does this starter charter work for working groups as well as for projects? Hey, what's the difference between a project and a working group? And I think we'll raise some really interesting questions about how we want to structure the foundation if there is even a distinction between a project and a working group. I think is a really interesting meta question for the CPC. That is an interesting meta question. I think that could be, I mean, that's an issue we can file right now, which is like, you know, start dog fooding the starter charter, as you say, as I like that name. And, you know, and make sure we're aligned on that and we can take that through the proposal process in the next week. Yeah, that makes sense. That might help us to kind of crystallize our thinking for this group as well, just by working through that process. Cool. I like that. I like it. Miles, you're a man with some plans. Plans or opinions. I haven't decided which one. So, now, what do you think? You like that too? Yeah, it sounds good for me. Yep. Cool. Let's see. Who else? Christian? Hi, plus one, Matt. Plus one. Richard? Maybe. Richard, if you're talking, you're muted. Be silent if you agree. So something that I think, like, I would add is just kind of like general advice from how we've handled things in note in the past. It doesn't mean we have to do it this way, but just kind of learnings. Generally, when we're talking about chartering something, a group usually is chartered in node when they already kind of have the influence in the area that they want to have authority over without having the authority. A great example of this is the release working group, which actually the release working group was a team that was unchartered that pretty much owned the entire release pipeline for, I think, almost two and a half years before they chartered. And it was mostly chartered because they're just like, hey, this is completely delegated. No one is, well, trying to undermine the authority of this group, but they don't actually have the authority. So we just kind of like put a stamp on it. At the time in which that happened, though, you know, that group already had extensive governance in place and already had like kind of the cogs moving and everything working. An example of an alternative is like the modules team has not been chartered. And part of that has to do with the fact that the modules team has had a very hard time reaching consensus on things and has not been the most productive group. But also there's a high level question about whether or not, you know, what would that team own and how would they own it and how to be like explicit about that is hard. And that's part of the reason why that group has never been chartered. Then there's groups that, you know, have been chartered from like the start of their formation. So one of the things that we may want to do is draft out governance first before we work towards a charter and kind of have at the very least a high level overview of how we want to operate. And we could work on a governance document within this repo, and then make the proposal with a potential charter, which would be more or less asking, hey, we want to like officially own this part. And like kind of here's our process that we have in place. We should maybe within the group kind of come up with what we would like the governance to be. And then the charter would kind of be the official stamp on that. I see what you're saying. I mean, that frankly it's unlikely that a charter will be granted to a group that doesn't have like a process, a governance process that's identified, because right now it is very ad hoc. And the governance process can be fairly straightforward. We could, you know, like start from the governance doc over in the CPC. We could even just like copy paste that in a pull request and just tease it apart until we have something that looks like it works. But just like something that includes like, how do we manage changes in this repo? How do we manage membership? And then maybe something around like how we decide who we send. Like we should kind of have consensus in this group around those basics. And then we can draft a charter asking to kind of, you know, have the authority to act on the governance that we've drafted. That makes sense. And so that just kind of brings a couple more issues then to file and create to start tracking to mind. Maybe an issue for some kind of governance getting and governance.md kind of bootstrap doc. And that's probably that's probably the best place to start. I would imagine. Is that something we think that we can work on asynchronously? So this group is meeting every two weeks. I think that's the max I would, I'm able to make progress on this particular work stream in my brain. But I certainly could could spend a few cycles asynchronously. I'm sure it's not everybody else like time lines. Do you think you think we can do folks here think they have the bandwidth to work on it async between now and then? Yep. If someone else doesn't volunteer, I could help with drafting and initial governance. But my schedule is pretty slammed this week. But I can definitely asynchronously review and suggest changes, whatever people prefer. Cool. I think there's somewhere in my bookmarks full of crap a template to that. I don't mind just throwing up as a some spaghetti on a wall. The CPC governance.md and the TSC governance.md could be good places to start. As far as governance is concerned as well. All right. I think I'm not sure that we have specific decisions that have been totally made here. But I think we have a direction that is feeling more exciting and more likely to get traction. I think we've had some great comments and thoughts on the requirements issues that Sindil opened and we can get started on a governance document with the intent to propose us an official chartered working group. And I think those are, these are things that we can start to work on and develop also in parallel to. Looks great. I also want to just point out that if I'm not mistaken the next TC39 meetings are in New York in the very beginning part of October. So maybe just about a month away. Then also the other one to bring up. I will not be able to be at next week's meeting at the meeting in two weeks. I will be traveling to Japan. But the following week I will be at TPAC. So I don't know if anyone else from this group will be at TPAC. If so, reach out. I'd love to hang out. But otherwise, if there's specific W3C related thoughts that people have, I can imagine things for the web incubator community group, especially around like import maps. Some of the stuff around namespaces may be of interest to people. Feel free to open an issue and at me or just to ping me privately. And I'll be happy to help represent our foundation at that event if there's specific things that need representation. So that reminds me because I'll be there as well. And I just can't believe it's only two weeks away crap. Would you be interested in just writing a, because Richard and I last time we were talking about doing some kind of call for just heads up. You've got a couple people from the OpenJS Foundation family essentially who are going to be out at this event. Do you have any questions or is there anything you'd like to hear about, you know, if we're having, you know, do you mind if folks, if we kind of share that information more broadly and encourage folks to reach out if they have anything to you? I'll be at TPAC as well. Yay. So maybe actually, maybe Jory, what could make sense? Should we, if it's not too late, propose an OpenJSF birds of a feather? I don't think it's too late. I am less familiar with TPAC because it's going to be my first time. Jory, would you be able to take the action item of proposing something like that? Yeah, I'm right it down right now. A boff for OpenJSF. Oh my god, I've never heard it called the boff, but it's so cute. Boff for OpenJSF at TPAC. Yeah, I'll reach out to Angel and Coralie at the W3C and make sure there's room, but I think that'd be fun. That would be so fun. Cool. And then yeah, I'll add that in the also in my update for tomorrow, my email. Cool. Okay, I think I have to drop early to be able to get to the meeting room for my next meeting. Anything else time sensitive or specific we should chat about? Are we good? No, I think we're good. Thank you so much, Miles. Love the conversation today. Okay. So just for everybody else, it looks like our next meeting on barring, you know, anything too crazy is September the 10th at approximately 2 p.m. Eastern. And we've got some homework to do between now and then, but it sounds like good stuff, seems like good stuff. Any other business before we close? All right. Taking that as the negatory. I will post this up on YouTube and make sure Recap gets in the repository. It's a funny way to say that. Thank you so much. Thanks so much, Christian. Thanks for turning Sundell. Bye.