 All right, so we're going to get started with the CPC session in here and then deprecations I think is in the other room right now. Some of the folks in the CPC are just taking super quick bio break. If I could ask those who are participating just to come forward to it and move a little bit more close to the front so we can more quickly pass microphones around because this is one of the more interactive sessions that would be super. And while we're doing that, I will share the good news everyone that we merged the agenda That is the final joke on the summit repo. So if this Excel slash Google spreadsheet is driving you as crazy as it is me, then you can see it on GitHub in a nice table. Hello everyone who's in the room. So a fun note and something to think about if you haven't read the charter for the cross project council, which is probably everyone who didn't draft it. The way in which the cross project council is set up, I mentioned it earlier, it's an egalitarian organization. So there are some different like membership levels. So there are voting members and voting members are made up of elected individuals from the various projects and we can get into how that is made but there's 15 voting members right now. There's also the concept of regular members, which is a self nominated process that we're still figuring out and then there's observers and observers is literally anyone from any project within the entire foundation and I would for the purpose of today's meeting, if no one objects, I would like to extend that to include everyone in the room. So even if you're not actively involved in this stuff, the way in which we're governance is set up is that we use consensus seeking and sense of seeking as a process means you say an idea and if no one objects, it kind of moves forward. The governance for the CPC states that any observer can participate in consensus seeking. So if you have problems with something, if you want to submit an idea, you don't actually need to be on the council. You just need to participate in the foundation. And that was something that was very intentional to try to make sure that anyone who wants to kind of do the work can do the work and there isn't like some sort of arbitrary bar. So if you're in this room, if this is stuff you want to work on, if you have an idea, it's not like there's some special thing you need to do to be able to have a voice to earn in this room as a voice. So please participate. Thank you. Well, this one is on. OK. All right. So to kick us off, I am CPC folks. I had proposed, I don't know if y'all saw this in our Twitter, NASA, Twitter, DM, some objectives for the session. Hello. That's very hard to read. Zoom in hands that we can proceed with sort of like our ordinary business, which we certainly have lots from last last week to continue over, take questions from the population here, many of whom are probably experiencing this for the first time. And then possibly because this is such high value time for us and we were having a great conversation about this at dinner last night, organizing some breakout sessions on different proposals that we have live right now, like the travel fund and the NIL had a good one last night. And I don't remember what it was. I don't remember it. But does that sound reasonable, Joe? I'm looking at you because I don't. All right. So ordinarily, we do this on. On Zoom once a week. And are we are zooming? We're not live streaming, but we are zooming. Yeah. Yeah. So I will navigate over now to the. Yes, sir. Can you join the chat? Yeah, I can. OK, for those who are familiar, we have the OpenJS Foundation GitHub work and all of the work of the CPC happens in the Cross Project Council repo. The agenda items are pulled from the label Cross Project Council agenda. So our first item that we have remaining from last week is nominating the chair and the director. Joe, do you want to, because I think you were leading this last week or probably to talk to this one. Will you open that? Yeah. Open the. So I think essentially we have nominations open for the chair and director roles for the Cross Project Council. And the hope was that people would have an opportunity at these events, the Collab Summit, JSConf, what not, generally here in Berlin to get to know each other a little bit better while nominations are open and then have voting start after these events and then have voting conclude. Was it 19th, 19th, just a few days before the next board meeting. And I believe that the is the process that we are to email nominations there, the last one to operations at OpenJSF.org and they'll remain private until the nomination period is over. And then when it's closed, Brian Warner will post all the nominations. Awesome. Yeah. Any open questions on this issue or can we move on? Yes, it might be useful to like the potential candidates are the people who are voting, it might be worth just showing that. So I just think it might be worthwhile if you could go over to the list of the voting candidate, voting members, because if people want to go and talk to them, understanding the candidates, I would be able to start. Yeah, OK, so the voting CPC reps from the projects. It'll open here in just a second. These are the folks who are our voting members. So from Node, Mateo and Joe, David, Timmy, Matt, Dylan, Jonah and Dan. Scroll all the way to the bottom. Yeah, because I have a question actually related to this. I made a mistake and reopen this issue. Nicole Leary dropped out because we thought we had too many idea members, but that was my bad. Yeah, I posted Emily's what do you call it, handle into an IBM Slack. And it came up in a similar name, similar location. I was like, OK, he must be an IBM or I should have checked. Anyway. Scroll up. And that's funny. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So so I don't know if I should open this up, you know, but it would be great if Nick were still included in the nominees. That's why. All right, great. So that's all. Congratulations. OK, so so these are our voting members that you see here that Miles commented. Thanks for that correction. That's great. All right, cool. Can you give a two long date read about what's going on in the interactive versus the chair? Oh, Michael could do that. Sure. The chair is focused around coordinating the meetings that take place weekly and basically making sure there's an agenda, that things are forward, often gets pulled into, you know, when there's problems, that kind of stuff. So it's basically keeping the business part of things running. The director acts as a link between the CPC and the board of directors. So actually goes to the board of director meetings, brings back and shares what information you can't share. Everything to the board of directors. You know, there's some stuff which has to stay within that particular group. But, you know, comes back, represents best they can, what's going on, where we need input. If there's questions, you know, often, so, for example, some common things that we have in TSC was like, we have a legal question. OK, well, they will take that question to the board and then pass this off to the legal committee. Or if we want to change some charters, previous governance, the board had to review those. So Miles actually maintained the board of things like here's the stuff we need to get the board to comment on. So that's kind of the separation. I can see Miles wants to say it when you're in my center. There you go. I'm going to change. Sorry. So with the board role, one of the things to keep in mind, which is important is like being the CPC board rep actually means that you're representing at the board every single project. And that can be really confusing because it means there's a lot of different hats that you wear, including your own. So there's actually a judiciary duty and risk with being a board member, which is important to keep in mind if it's something that you want to nominate or eventually work towards doing. So every single board member has a judiciary duty to the foundation to do what's in the best for the foundation itself. And, you know, if things were to happen that caused financial disaster to the foundation, you could be held liable as an individual for that if you're responsible for it. So that's one bit of responsibility that's good to keep online. Yes. So the question was if there is the foundation has insurance in place for the liability, and the answer was yes, but that doesn't cover you. Just sorry. Yeah, weird board stuff. If you've ever sat on the board of an on profit, insurance doesn't cover you if you go against the will of the rest of the board. So you can't just speak out whenever you want on things that would risk things like the fiduciary responsibility of any of the individual projects as well, right? So everything that's housed in the foundation, potentially eroding the value of those individual projects, all falls under that. And since you're representing 31 different projects and it's very possible that those projects don't even agree, like a really great example would be the merger that happened when node was first introduced to it. Not everyone was positive about it. And whether or not I was personally Supercompo, which I was, I had to make sure to represent all of those viewpoints to the board and not just my own bias. But also a part of that is you ultimately have to vote regardless of whether all of those projects are in conflict. So part of the responsibility is managing expectations around that and being careful in your delivery and also being transparent, right? Like I think the nuance of being a director for an at-large. Yeah, I just want to move us on. I think those are great questions, but if anyone is interested in nominating or nominating someone else for a chair director role, and you have questions, definitely go to these individuals about some of those responsibilities. Just want to keep up on a bit more pace here. So our next item was nominations for regular members. Does anyone from the CPC want to speak to this issue? Michael, since you open the issue. Yeah, let's just go down to the bottom to see if there's I think it's just a time that anybody who's here and who's a member of one of the projects, I think we say it's, you know, to be a member for three months. If I remember correctly, wants to be part of the CPC, as it was mentioned earlier, very open, you can be an observer, but if you want to actually say I'm committed and I'm going to participate regularly, I think now we should just start. I think all we're waiting for is that the reading needs to be updated. So we have a place to have people start peeing or purring themselves in. But if you're interested, that's the next step. Just purring yourself in saying I want to become a regular member. And as was mentioned, you know, you get to participate in pretty much everything unless there's conflict and that's when the voting numbers may happen. I don't know, but that should happen very well. One thing that I want to add, regular members who participated in the consensus seeking model of the CPC. So essentially, they were going to be heard. That's where it's supposed to be. Like on the TSE side, where we have a similar model, it's very rarely have votes. Like I can't remember. It's like once every two, three months or something. So like Mateo said, pretty much most of the time we would just be participating in my voting numbers. All right, Groovy. So definitely add your name to the README BPR. Just going down, not in any particular order. New process for CPC reps to share responsibility for travel fund. This is actually one of the topics, too, that I'm suggesting we break out as a session. But Mateo, do you want to speak to this or is Manil here? Yeah, I would like to speak not about this, but about the PR that I have created because this is a big issue. So, and Node.js as a travel fund, as you probably know. I mean, if you travel here for the travel fund, with the travel fund. Hey, thank you, folks. And yeah, that was amazing. And the travel fund serves the purpose of enabling individuals that cannot rely on corporate sponsors to travel. We always recommend your employer to fund your travel, but that's not usual. That's not possible. Not always possible in both small and large organizations. So you can even be shelves, some thousands of dollars or years of yours to travel. Might not be something that you can, you're not willing to do out of pocket. So there's that. So as part of this, the non-travel funds serve two purposes. And one is enabling people to come to this summit and the next summit and stuff. And also for doing stuff, promoting node, conference and events and organizing other things. So those are two different roles. And I, as part of my proposal on this issue, I am proposing to create a team under the CPC that is responsible for organizing the summit. And that we'll have oversee on a travel fund for the summits that will be available to all projects to some extent. And these needs to be defined. This is an open question. So I'll be break out that fund. And that's is will be in the budget of this the corporate or summit themselves. And there are some questions around, you know, all of this. So it's if you like this event and you want to be part of the organization of the next event, on the next call of summit, please get in touch. Event organization is a rather different thing from running an open source project. But it's as important because, you know, being together and meeting each other face to face can help resolve things and move things forward, resolve conflicts, you know. I had a nice conversation with with Francesca tonight and they were saying that sharing human beings of strange animals and sharing the meal together helps a lot of, you know, that a lot of things and group conversation. So that was pretty much, that was fantastic. So that's what are blessed this. So that is, if you go up, that is a PR open from me. I don't remember the number on, yes, it's on the table. So yes, 187, the first one. And it's basically that. And if you want to chime in, that's probably the time. So, you know, that's kind of that. Do you want to have a breakout session with Vex here to this week on this topic, on this proposal? If there are people that are willing, yes, definitely. And, you know, if somebody wants to reach me up, reach out to me or just write something there, we can talk about it. And that's gonna be pretty helpful, I think. That's it. Great, thank you. Okay, next agenda item will be initial, process for electing voting members from non-impact projects. So for some context, we kind of had a chicken and the egg problem where we were, all impact projects get up to two representatives, voting representatives on the CPC. And then we elect two more representatives from the other categories of project. But we have to sort of like, we need to have a group that adopts the voting process, but we, you know, so anyway. So we just took everybody who self-nominated as an initial sort of just to get us bootstrapped and going, but we need to actually define what our election process looks like for these folks in a more, you know, regular capacity. Myles, do you want to speak to this one since you opened the issue or does somebody else? Hi. So, I mean, Joy, as much as you want to talk about it too, please feel free because it was originally your proposal also. Okay. Oh wait, process for electing voting members. Oh, I'm a mess. Okay, so I think that for this first pass, we kind of just said everyone who raised their hand because there wasn't too many just all became voting members. I think it also kind of falls in line with like voting members or more a role of responsibility than power in the design, but we did look at a couple different voting platforms that we could use, including Helios and then the other voting platform is CIBS. There's a couple of different like methods for voting that we could use. So there's CIBS does a method where you kind of stack rank all the characters and then behind the scenes it figures out who is the most voted and then can kind of stack rank them. Helios has a couple different ways that you can set it up, but the way that I was suggesting was inspired how the OSI does their election for their board where essentially you get a list of all of the candidates and you just check next to the ones that you're okay with being. So it's not like picking anyone, it's just like, hey, you're all the candidates that I agree with and then it's whoever had the most votes of confidence, you then stack rank based on that. My understanding is that we're not in a rush to solve this problem right now, but it's definitely something that we want to codify so that when elections come up in the next year, we solve it. I guess the only thing that we haven't really planned for here, I'm not sure if we need to pre-optimize for it is like, what happens when new projects join? If a new project joins, does an impact level do they immediately elect their two representatives? Is that like kind of a mid-election and then it happens again at the same election time? If new projects join as non-impact level projects and they're early, like they didn't have the opportunity to raise their hand and participate in this, what do we want to do? So I don't think we need to make decisions now, but like those are probably things that we want to start thinking about so that we have an answer for people when they show up instead of kind of dealing with these conflicts. But we can also just figure it out as we go. I think the approach that we've taken so far has been like hyper-inclusive. I guess another thing to keep in mind also, we drafted all of this governance as part of the bootstrap process and it was kind of a vacuum and not reality. We can change the charter at any time. The CPC charter does need to go to the board to be changed and that's something the director would be responsible for helping to do. But if we find that like what's in the charter doesn't fit with the way that we actually want to do things, we can augment it as we go. One related issue that we should, I think, get sorted at least in the next couple of months or so is when the next or well, first elections would actually happen because going with exactly one year is a really, really inconvenient given that it was what like three weeks before now. And that would suggest that we would end up with a similar situation as now where people who get picked have about a couple of weeks in order to get the travel and everything sorted to participate in the summit if we are going to follow the past precedent of how these no JS summits have gone. So that ends up interlinking with what do we want to do with the future of collapse summits. And I would appreciate if we ended up with the situation where the elections were happening, at least a month or a couple of months apart from any collapse summits. I was just gonna add, you can even think of, you might want to do it the other way so that people can get together at the collapse summit, know that they're voting to get a better feel for who they're gonna opt to vote for or not. And so you might want to even do them afterwards. The right to figuring out the timing is important. So that could be reminded of, I mean, with the current timing that presuming past precedent follows at the next collapse summit happens in Montréal, in Desanias, then it would make sense for the next election to happen, for example, in January. Possibly, I guess that's even saying four or a year from now, plus or minus a few months. Yeah, yeah, yeah, as I said, yeah. But yes, it did remind me there's one thing which you're not gonna find here because it's actually in the TSC remote. But one of the things the CPC does need to approve is they updated charter for the Node.js community. It used to be, you know, basically I was just taking that to the board, they said it was fine, but it's now the CPC that's gonna be reviewing those charters. So I don't know how we wanna do that here, but we should probably at least get started on that. Yeah, that would be nice. I don't think it's horrible to do that. Yeah, so I don't know if we wanna discuss it or it just happens in a separate issue. So I think we, so it isn't captured in our thing that generates the agenda. So that is- When we're having a discussion that that probably doesn't caught cross organizations. Yeah, we need to fix the tool to not cross the charters. I don't think so in the sense that I think it's better for process coordination that the Node.js, TSC and Comcom go and open an issue on the cross-project council repo. Essentially it's, you know, the Node.js, TSC and Comcom and all the projects when they need to change their charters that we need to have their own discussions on that. And then they should ask the CPC to- When they're ready for like official review. For unofficial review. So- So as our CPC representative I'll ask you- Yeah, that's what essentially, it's me and Joe, so yes, essentially yes. That's more or less the, I think that should be the process of doing this in a way that is, because we have 31st, 31 projects. So I don't want to go around and check things on 31 different GitHub organizations. It's going to be hard. So you're not gonna like where I was gonna go with this? No, I like it enough. We probably should start a tracking issue for those of you in the room who are representing any of the 31 projects in the foundation. We do need to go through the process of chartering all of them. One of the things that we did discuss, which I don't think we got in, we're gonna get into today too much is like, we have a process for onboarding new projects and Jory and I have been working on like a checklist and process. Jory started the work and I've been adding a few things. But one thing that I think would be good is if all of the projects kind of like dog food that process. I don't think it's fair as a foundation to ask new projects to do things that we ourselves aren't willing to do or aren't capable of doing. So we should really make sure that like the bar that we're setting for new projects coming in, especially at the various levels of projects are things that the levels of projects that we have are doing. It's very easy to kind of get brought in just because you were there before and then like not really make it fair for new people that are coming in. But part of all of this would be we maybe should start a tracking issue for like the onboarding of projects which includes chartering all of the projects which don't have charters, which would probably involve hey, maybe we should make like a default template of what a charter should look like that's fill in the blank that makes it easy and we could probably take like the note charter as a starting place. But I do think one of the things for other projects that are here that's good to know. What? I remember. Oh. One of the things that I think is important to consider is like, note has been doing this for a couple of years now so we have a lot of process in place. Doesn't mean you have to do it the way that we're doing it. I think there's value in kind of a lot of people having similar things like especially just like not having to recreate everything from first principles. But I don't think that project should feel like they have to adopt the governance of note to do what they're doing and there are some things that are charter that are pretty exact. One of the big things to keep in mind is the difference between your governance and your charter. Charters are things that require other parties to approve of for changes whereas the governance is something that you can manage yourself. I see Adam nodding along here because we learned that lesson the hard way. But it's like, you wanna actually have as little as possible in the charter that just defines like the goals and mission defining what you own as opposed to the group that is chartered to you. Whereas the day-to-day operations and things that you may wanna tweak on a more regular basis should be more in a governance document. Tracy. Yeah, just to cover that though. So to know what you need to have in the charter versus the governance by a bare minimum, you just look at the charter at the OpenJS Foundation or ask somebody else. So like the chairs, I think the representatives of each project should probably be aware of like what that charter says just so that you can avoid any hiccups down the road which is writing something in your governance that actually requires external support or consensus on even if it's just amongst the other projects. Although to the point I was saying a little while ago, now that charter changes for projects will be going through the cross-project council instead of the board is gonna be way easier and a lot of the pain that like the Node Foundation had like the situation that we were alluding to before was like we did some charter changes and then there were some like editorial changes that also happened and then everything got mixed in and then it was really hard for the lawyers to figure out the difference and then it took like four months to do something that should have taken like a week. So we protected against that but yeah, if anyone needs help with this, just ask me. So I wanna move us along and suggest that again, because we can take advantage of everyone being together in this space that we potentially have, if you're interested in writing the draft proposal for how we do elections which was the original agenda topic and or if you're interested in being part of a group that helps kind of figure out how we write the charters for 31-ish projects, let's do some breakout sessions on that because we can probably get a lot done with just half an hour brainstorming. All we have to do is just get a document with just the initial ideas down and then we can like advance them. So I wanna take advantage of your brain power. Let's move on to our next agenda item which actually I think we can close this one since we identified that you're not in a hurry. If you refresh, I already closed that. Oh, okay. Don't, thanks. And then review meeting times would be the next one. We really do need to settle this one, you guys. So. A lot of people are not here for this, so we're not thinking. We're not thinking. Okay, then that means our next CPC meeting will be on Monday, the 3rd, and actually because I don't know what times I'm in anymore. It'll be Monday. Guys, we might go to the shoot, though. Pardon? Let me have the shoot. It'll be 8 p.m. local time in Berlin unless we take a different time right now. Okay, which to that issue, I don't know because I know there are people who have scheduled restraints who aren't here. So should we stick with 8 p.m. on Monday for those of us who are here? Or we should have been an issue about that. I propose we have like a virtual breakout session to just actually settle. I mean, not necessarily here, but sometimes soon. Yeah, because it's definitely sticky. Yeah. What time have they been meeting once? So the lead on Tuesday is 1,600 UTC. And then the lead on Wednesday is also 1,600 UTC. But we were talking about like alternating as we have been. Right now, we always meet on Mondays, but it alternates between two different times. One of the TSE members has a tool that can pull these and like show you all like the best option. I love it. Okay. I have a recording next week. Can we just decide to go for a different day than Monday given that today is Thursday? Yeah, I mean, we could do that. I mean, we were talking about this specifically last time we ended up talking, I think, about alternating between 4,600 and 1,900 UTC on Wednesday. So I can't just at least switch to Wednesday for the day and then hash out time later. Changing the day right now, like at least the time that we have, we know where it's for some people's schedules. So switching the day, but not in the time from this calendar may end up with us picking a time where no one can show up. Also the TC 39 meeting for Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, next week. Yeah, that's a good point. Never mind. I loved it. Okay, so we'll stick with what we have, but I think we should definitely shoot to address this promptly on Monday. Okay, I think that might get us through all of the agenda items and which case we can actually double check that. We have a project board. This board has all of the items that we have identified as work to be conducted post-bootstrap. And we have been going through that. I don't know if we wanna do that now or rather since we have 20 minutes to lunch, open up for just any questions that people have. I'd suggest skipping that. Okay. You can do the other things if you're better. I agree with the government, not okay. So let's just open up the floor for any questions from our wonderful group of participants because we have lots of people in this room who aren't normally able to make the CPC meetings. Do you have any questions about, or ideas? That's another high value thing that we can be talking about. Glenn. Hello, my name's Glenn. So a lot of this is very new to people. So for people that are members of the NOD Foundation just joined as an individual rather than as part of an organization, are they gonna be grandfathered into this new organization? Is there, have we thought about that? So would there be individual members would people join as an individual member of the European Foundation? If they were a member of the NOD, the JS Foundation, when would they be with current poverty? So I'm gonna let Tracy answer the question. So we have a proposal from the Boots Trap phase of work around individual membership. It just needs to be applied and expanded. So the idea is, I believe that was accepted so far was that there would not be an individual, necessarily a foundation, sorry, a membership for a specific project. It would be for the foundation overall. The details of that are yet to be worked out in the implementation details that we need to do now. But there thought around that was that once the CPC was formed, this is something that needs to be owned as sort of a subcommittee because the individual membership as it stood was very no eccentric, obviously, with the design and with many projects potentially being represented not necessarily every single one because that's not necessarily that every project would wanna be considered as part of that program. But there is a basic design that's been laid out. We just need to implement it. Okay. I have two sets. The thing I kinda add is like, I think the individual membership at least in my mind is a way for people who aren't active in projects themselves to get involved. Like yourself, you're already a member of the NOD project and all of those members I see as being part of the foundation. For example, if you're a member in participating in the NOD project, you can self-nominate as a CPC regular. So you're already kind of a member. It's more like if you wanted, that's the opportunity for people who aren't able to interact as directly to become individual members. So that's just one to clarify that I see that. We're already a member of the bigger group. But we appreciate your financial contribution. Yeah, sorry. Try to be quick this time. One of the community directors that existed in the NOD foundation prior to the merger was the individual member director. With the new bylaws, that directorship still exists, but it requires 4,000 members program to 2,000. A number that we're gonna revisit anyways to activate it. Well, that was like what we talked about in the board was that like if that member can't be reached and it doesn't seem reasonable that we can discuss it and figure out. But overall, we're gonna try to ramp up the program. Tracy's put together a really amazing proposal that includes price points and rolling it out and what would be the benefits of the program. So as Tracy was mentioning, there is totally the intention of still rolling out a full individual membership program. A team of people did that. A team of people did it. Team work, make other questions? Yeah. So I'm like, who all wants to come and join this? That's one of the things we're looking for. We had a core number of people help us, Brad, but now we're hoping to get more people from across the project to get involved. There's lots of different work to be done. So hopefully everybody says, hey, this is interesting and just come and get involved. I love that message. Okay, Brad, obviously we'll be here for basically all weekend and also next week. So if there's any questions that you think of in the meantime about the CPC or about how to get involved, you can kind of poke any one, Mateo or Michael or Tracy or Miles or myself or anybody. Joe. Joe, Chris, everybody. And we would like to welcome you into program management of the CPC work. So with our last 15 minutes, I was going to suggest that we potentially arrange some breakout sessions in order to generate some proposals and forward momentum on some of the issues that we're identifying. Let's just super quickly maybe recalculate the proposal process of how we've been working. Does that make sense? Yeah, okay, I figured. So we have a staging process for CPC proposals. And a proposal can be anything. It can be a change to how we charter things. It can be a program idea. So for example, one of the program ideas that we have is a recognition program. That's the one that I was like, oh yeah. If you have something that you'd like to see or service that you'd like to see the foundation take on, then all you have to do is create a pull request on the CPC repo as a stage zero proposal and then what we do is iterate on those ideas and refine them until we are able to adopt them as stage three slash final. So kind of a little take on the CPC process. My proposal is that we have some breakout sessions while we're out here to generate stage zero proposals for some of these items. And the ones that we've identified and Mateo already has one for travel fund management. We have some body of work already around onboarding but that needs to be refined. We have the elections topic that we're discussing too that we haven't our infrastructure. So let me just like quickly describe the problem space here. We have 31 projects all of which have different setups and infrastructure needs. It's kind of a hot mess and we need to probably streamline it. Not we need to probably desperately need to streamline it because it's very hard to manage. So I'd love to talk to folks about that. And then there was an idea for a recognition program. The JS foundation used to have a recognition program. It was kind of a failure but then I think there's some ideas around a no recognition program. I would love for us to add again, make use of the spaces that we have for this. How does anybody have a recommendation for how we can proceed to organize these or should I just like, you know, throw spaghetti. If you want to talk about the next summit organization I'm going to the table over there. Okay, follow Mateo to talk about summit organization. I would love to talk about infrastructure for projects. So, and I'm basically free this afternoon. So anybody who has, who would like to tackle that with me. I appreciate that. Yay, thanks. Anybody want to take any of the others? I'll do project onboarding. All right, Miles has project onboarding. Michael? I was gonna say, if anybody wants to talk about the elections I can provide the background and we'll be ready to discuss. But if there isn't, we'll do it together. So anybody, put your hand up if you're interested in that. I think voting is one of those things that everybody has an opinion on, that everybody wants to do. Okay, so we can do that. We'll continue to do that through the, through the get out. And Manel, who is not in the room and Ahmed from NPM I think will, they're interested in the recognition stuff. So if you have thoughts on what the foundation can do to say thank you to our membership and to our contributors or our medianers, let's chat with those folks. If there's no other ideas for breakout sessions we can conclude. So I guess, okay, Natalia's got Trump upon sort of summits. Were you gonna have like, where were we going? So for infra, I guess there's not that many of us all to scope in this corner. Tracy and I, I guess we're considering chatting about individual members. You have more of a bit that spreads us too thin. Yeah, I think it can happen like now and then also throughout. Well then at some point, Tracy, I would love to talk about individual membership more. All right, Creepy. So if you're interested in any of these topics, go find those individuals. We'll call the session for now. Yeah, thank you so much.