 And we are live on YouTube. Howdy everyone. Welcome to our Tuesday, March 16, 2021 meeting of the Cross Project Council, expecting a lighter group today. No big deal. But thanks for joining us and if into those who are maybe watching on the on the live stream. We start with announcements. Does anybody else have announcements before I go into my litany of announcements. Okay, cool. I will do that. Today we have the marketing committee. If anybody's interested in attending that that's our monthly meeting. And that's going to be at 3pm Eastern. If anybody would like to to join, I see a hand raised tyranny. Also, if you're on the marketing committee email list, check your spam because I realized it's been going to my spam for a very long time, apparently. Yikes. Definitely, definitely. The marketing committee meetings are also on our calendar. So if you're subscribed to the calendar, you should perhaps get them and that way, but good call. Check, always check your spam periodically. Cool, related to marketing. Of course, we have lots of ask me anything opportunities. I think we're going to rename what we have to what that is but you know, once a month we've been getting these great conversations to folks and projects. Last month we did the earlier this month we did the JS trans panel. If you're interested in doing an AMA style thing with us in the coming months. Reach out to Rachel. She would definitely love to have you on. We're also looking for awesome folks from our communities to feature in our dev profiles which have been extremely well received people are liking those. So if you have somebody that you want to recognize in your community, it's an awesome way to do to do that. Reach out to Rachel if you have a suggestion. And then of course, we're always hoping to do more to promote and announce and lift up things that are happening in our projects so if you have news releases, you know, just something you want to celebrate. So, we have a hash PR dash marketing channel and Twitter, we can coordinate on retweeting or tweeting something special and making blog posts that kind of stuff so just a generic, that's always open to you. One more thing, Jory. Yeah. So the Node.js project has an initiative right now, it's called Next 10, and it's sort of planning for what the next 10 years of Node.js is going to be. And they are launching a very short constituency survey today, so be on the lookout for that. There will be a blog post going live here shortly. I'm sure there will be some supplemental tweets. So if you are interested in being involved in that, that would be a good opportunity to participate. And if I've missed anything on that, I know there are some folks on the call that can fill in. Great, very cool. And then do we have, I think also related to that, there's a channel in Slack too about Next 10. Is that right, Michael? You are muted, friend. The issue I had about Slack was actually related to something else, it's related to the Build Working Group. We can cover it then. Oh, okay, I thought I'd seen, I was doing a Slack channel review. I thought I'd already seen a, but I must have been mistaken. There is likely already one that somebody created, but that's not necessarily on the agenda today. All right. So, okay, moving on, other announcements. The Programming Committee, the OpenJS World Programming Committee, which is usually on Thursdays, we're making a slight adjustment to our meeting this week to accommodate the Node TSC meeting. There's several of us who are gonna be attending that to talk about some of our standards working group stuff and announcements. So, if you're on the Programming Committee or looking to get involved in the Programming Committee, just be on the lookout for that updated time. It'll probably be an hour earlier. Speaking of which, OpenJS World now, right now, is a great time to register for the conference. As you've already heard, we have adjusted the date due to a conflict with another community event. It's June 2nd, and we would love to have, you know, everybody here there, obviously. So, you can do that. Registration is open today. We're hoping to get the announcements or at least the first sort of round of breakout speakers announced by the end of the month. And yeah, we just wanna make sure that y'all don't miss it. So, head on over to the website and register. And then, last but not least, next Tuesday, I'm telling you this today because we won't meet between now and then is the Standards Working Group meeting and that's Tuesday the 23rd at 2 p.m. Eastern. And so I hope to see you there. Did I miss anything? Is there another announcement? Did I inspire you with these announcements with your own announcements? No, okay. Thought I'd ask. Board meeting updates. Michael, do you have any? I'm thinking, I don't think I have any board meeting updates. Oops, yep. Nothing comes to mind this week. You're thinking that you don't think that there are any. Yeah, I'm thinking that I'm thinking, but I don't remember anything that's new to bring up this week. Cool, he's thinking no. Great. Moving us down, we've got a couple of quick things from the standards repository that I forgot to tag. One is just an issue on number 128. There is nominations for our W3C AC rep. The committee is going to, or I should say Brian Cardell is stepping down and so those are open. And then I also want to say thanks, shout out thanks to Miles for casting our affiliate ballot for OSI elections, which closed today. And if you want to stay more abreast of these issues, head on over to the hash standards channel in Slack. And you'll get notified when these things are open. There we go. Moving on down to the summit repository, which we've got a question on issue 306, which Michael has raised. It's one I've been hearing too. Oh, let me promote to me here. Are we going to do a collaborator summit this year? Good question. Michael, do you want to sort of contextualize this? Yeah, I mean, basically it was like, are we going to do one? And then we actually got a little bit into a discussion of like, and does it even make sense to, you know, in the past we'd co-located with things like OpenJS World, but we got into the discussion of like, does it actually help or hurt to co-locate? So sort of those two questions. One, are we going to do one? And two, would we be aiming to do it at the same time of OpenJS World or some other time or kind of the two key questions I think we should talk about? I have a really dumb question I should have asked before. Is OpenJS planned to be potentially in a real live event this year? Was it planned to be off online from the get-go? Online. Yeah, online from the get-go. And we did get some additional guidance just actually yesterday from the LF on when they're thinking that organizationally it will be okay to really plan in person and they're not really being super firm about that, but earliest possible is late fall. So one of the things that we're considering is whether we could possibly do a collab summit type event partnered with one of the other events like Open Source Summit North America. For example, if that happens in person. What would our community prefer to see? Something that's more, would we wanna do something that's online or would we wanna push it and wait? I mean, what would y'all prefer? I think it's the question, right? So the reason they asked about this is but I think many people have different experiences about this. From my perspective, the way it happened last year online, the collab summit wasn't very useful. And so I wouldn't do like, I wouldn't redo an offline version. Sorry, an online version. Jesus, an online version this year again, because I don't, like I didn't get anything out of it. I barely joined. It was really not something that I found really useful to me. I think the feedback I also heard is like not necessarily whether it's useful or not, but that doing it along with the conference doesn't help. Like you're not leveraging travel or anything like that. And it just makes it harder because if you've already been at the conference, taking two days to be at the conference, taking another three days or two days right afterwards is harder than if, like if we, so if we weren't gonna do it, actually doing it sometime in like a month later or something would help from that perspective. And then it's, the other feedback I got was some people thought, well, was it really that much different than what we get from our working groups? Because, you know, we do those fairly regularly. I think it's different in that there is a little bit more focus, but certainly that was some of the feedback that it's, we, you know, it's not as different as when we actually get together in person. I guess my other feeling though would be, it'd be a shame to let it go a whole year and not do anything, but. I generally agree with Toby on this, specifically like figuring out how to get value out of something and not like, I'll be honest, I don't think a traditional like meeting setting is gonna work for us getting value out of it, just cause like there's gonna be people who, I mean, like I, very similar to Toby, I just basically didn't end up attending a lot of things. The UI was horrible. It just, it was really a struggle for us to get there and like do anything meaningful. So like in that, I would say if we're planning on, if we want to do something, figuring out what we want to do and then going and figuring out the solution for that rather than finding the solution for it and then like building a structure around that solution is gonna be the better way to go. I thought one would be very interested in participating in a live in-person collab summit sometime next winter. Same. I cannot wait to see all y'all in person. Let's all commiserate. Yes. So I think what I'm hearing in terms of consensus is we're not interested in pushing to do an online thing that's in conjunction with the OpenJS world. And perhaps what we want to do instead is look into the feasibility of something a few months after, maybe in person or online, but more kind of catered to the Tierney's point designed around like the thing that we want to do as opposed to is that accurate recapturing? I also think that that is a good point that like we could potentially end up doing something in person. I don't have super high hopes for that, but as things progress and as vaccines roll out, I mean, I would say that a vaccine requirement for that would probably be ideal, but that's also like a gated thing of access and stuff. So, it's a thing. Yeah, I'm not sure how to, what the likelihood of that is, but it's also a good point to, if it does end up being likely or possible, we can kind of have that chance if we don't do it with the event. Should we take some, or at least maybe final issue to take some volunteers to interrogate, collab summit in the fall, whatever. I'm just waving my hands because it's nebulous. Yeah. Okay, cool. All right, that sounds good. So, action. Cool, this is good, good job. Open JS Foundation Cross Project Council items. Private Slack channel for the Node JS build team machine management. Yeah, I opened that one. Basically, we're just having a discussion. We recently moved over some machines from one of our infrastructure donators to a new environment. And as part of that, it came out that it would be useful to actually have a way to continue to collaborate with some of the reps at the donators, the Donator Company. We actually used the public channel during the transition, but we're starting to talk about how do we actually get access to the consoles and things that we can't share publicly. And the suggestion was like, hey, can we just create a private channel? And I opened this because I don't know if we've created any private channels and thought we would need and want CPC input on whether this is the kind of thing we should do. And then also kind of like, we would want to understand who this lack of MINS are because we'd have to assume that they have access as well in terms of whatever we discussed there. Yeah, so we definitely have private channels for infra items for other projects. So this would be kind of in line with that, because just as you say, sometimes there's things that I need to share that you don't want to share with the whole entire world. We can pull the list really quick to answer your other question about admins. I think I dropped that in the issue. Oh, you did? Yeah, thanks. Great. So it's primarily staff with... Let me go and get this up. But I don't see any issue creating this for you all. Okay, yeah. The other thing I'd say is like, at least as a CPC member, I think this is probably a good thing. If this had existed when node moderation started, we probably wouldn't have a paid node moderation Slack. That is also sponsored for free by Slack just because that'd be good. It reduces the need for us to do that kind of thing. So I think encouraging projects to, if they need a private space to dock is fine. I would assume, I think one thing that I would recommend is that we have foundation staff members in there. If that's okay, I think that like, I would assume nobody is gonna be upset about having foundation staff as like people in there just to make sure that like, if someone says something bad or something that there's like visibility into that, right? But that's the only thing I think. Yeah, like we don't have the, we have the secrets repo in the build working group where it really is just limited to the members. And this I kind of see is similar. So I'm not sure I would add additional people who didn't have like the sort of need to know, but on the other hand, I think I'm comfortable with the admins being the staff people, right? Just assuming they're not gonna go in and pull out the info or anything like that. Yeah, and I mean, I guess I can't speak for it, but I would assume that that would be like, they're literally employed to do this and that would be a not great thing to do. Right, yeah, yeah. Is Dave staff as well? He is not, but actually seeing that list, I was like, oh, those are folks who were, so just a bit of a history about this particular workspace, it was the JS Foundation's workspace. Right. So many moons ago it was Chris and Dave as the execs of the JS Foundation. So I think that's just more of a legacy and I'm sure that neither of them would feel, you know, any need to continue now that Brian and Rachel and Robin and myself as staff has that. So I can clear that up and make sure. That's good. Okay. Okay, so yeah, so I should just comment in, we discussed in the meeting this week and it sounds consistent and something, we would just ask one of the admins to create it for us, right? Okay. And that's closely related to just a quick convo I was having with Tierney before. I'll create an issue for this, but I was just doing some late cleanup of some of our channels that, you know, because we have like 60 some odd channels about a dozen or so of which we're just not ever used. So those have just been archived and I'm looking to talk with folks who want to explore ideas for just kind of energizing discussion and making the Slack space more welcome. So I'll file an issue about that though and we can talk about it another time. Move it on. Number 725 is the travel fund allocation for 2021. And Michael, you were addressing this as we were starting to kick off the call. Yep, just an update on that one is that, you know, I was, I should have updated it earlier. So sorry about that. So I was just updating to reflect what was in the budget. It was set on the assumption that travel wouldn't resume until the latter part of this year. Toby makes a good point though that, you know, maybe those funds should go into something else. And I've raised the conversation with the board and, you know, we're talking about that through email. No closure yet, but, you know, I should be coming back with what the discussion is and in terms of like the suggestion based on the input we've gotten. That's awesome, thanks. Next one is 7-Eleven renamed master branches. Toby, this one's. Yeah, Joe suggested that to bring, let me just open up the issue. Joe suggested earlier that to bring closure to this, we had done the work at the level of the org, the CPC's org, and that to close it, that we would want to actually message the different projects and suggest that they do as much and give them a channel on Slack to discuss this. And so I assumed that you probably would be, Joe, you're the one reaching out. And so I offered an email template to get you started. And if people agree to go down that road, I think it's a great way to, yeah, sort of like finalize this issue. That would be great. I'm happy to take that template and send it out. And do you mind if I like, you know, once we do that, projects perhaps like reach out to you if they have like questions or want more resources or things of that sort? I think this Joe suggestion, which I liked was to have a pound infra, to have to get them to talk about this in pound and have some of us actually checking that there. I'm probably not the best resource for that because like the challenging bits are when you have third party vendors that have been working on the assumption that master was the main branch. And so folks that have actually been handling large projects here have more input to provide than I, I haven't done any of that work for like difficult settings. Would it make any sense to, like, sorry, go ahead. No, please. I was just gonna say, like, would it make any sense to use a different channel from infra, just like dedicated? So if you're just interested in this one issue, you can subscribe to it versus all input issues. I don't know if creating another one, I just wondering if like focusing on this and giving a place where that's discussed would make any sense. I don't have an opinion on that. I have like a counter opinion, which is I'd love for them to just have the conversation and infra to like bring more awareness, you know? And then also, you know, because there may be people who are just kind of casually, they're not, maybe they have other projects or something. I just think it, I don't, I think it would be fine to give an input. How much traffic is on infra? I just, like, it's not strictly an infra thing. I think there's other aspects. So if it's, if infra is both low enough traffic that you're not signing up for a bunch of stuff and the people on infra won't mind a bunch of extra conversations, then sure. Yeah, there's only like 45 people in infra, you know, in the last 30 days, let's see, there've been nine posts. So it's pretty low traffic. I think it'll be fine. My, it'll probably be fine. That's my motto. It'll probably be fine. All right, moving to our next topic. Issue number 699, improving diversity and inclusion at the OpenJSF. And then we go to that one. This one was opened by Toby. And so I actually wasn't in the last meeting. I don't know who was and who can bring feedback. Joe was suggesting a regular meeting outside of the work sessions, which I think is a good idea, but he's not there today. So I guess we should follow up over email. Yeah, I think so. So the last working session was more to work on an adjacent topic, which was the code of conduct stuff. So I'm not sure that really too much has been pushed forward on this topic since you were out last week, Toby. So I think we should just follow up. Yeah, we should just continue following up and maybe create like a regular meeting that's outside of working sessions, of work sessions, whatever those are called. I think Joe's suggestion here makes sense. Any other thoughts or comments before we move on? I think it's really interesting that the W3C is exactly in the same sort of state that we're in and probably other organizations do. So this is, those value in connecting with these different folks to sort of like tackle these issues and get some input from others as well. I think it's a great time to be doing this. Agreed. All right. Last issue is issue 632. Brian, this one is provide implementation guidance for the DCO slash CLA. And I know you were exchanging messages with them yesterday. Yeah, so I had opened up the PR a little while ago and there was a, we're having trouble testing something, making sure that it actually worked. I think just really over the past 12 hours made a bit of progress here. So a big picture again is just that we need for ProBot DCO to pick up support for Mediation Commits, which is the thing that I've been working on here for a while, once that actually goes through and gets merged, then the guidance that I've written makes sense to be published because it refers to that. So that's kind of where we are. Getting close though. And the challenge here is that everybody's kind of doing this particular work on a volunteer basis, particularly ProBot DCO as maintainer. So, you know, attempting to respect their time as well because they have limited amount of time to be able to solve the problems that I apparently created. So attempting to be cautious and respectful here of all of that as well. We're getting close. That's awesome. All right. That takes us to the end of our list of agenda items at 36 minutes past the hour. Good job. Is there any other business that somebody might want to raise questions, ideas, you know, anything like that? Long silence. Nope, okay, cool. So next week's working session is going to be around two on some of the COC opportunities we found last week. That should, and Joe and I have a draft agenda to share with you, hopefully today. Ahead of that next Tuesday. So that's the plan for next week's working session. I've already chaired the upcoming meetings. I don't think there's any other Q and A unless you all have Q and A. Nope, okay, cool. Then I think we've done it. This is the gavel meeting adjourned.