 Great. I assume that we're live when the little thing comes up there. So, yeah. Thanks everybody for joining another episode of the Open JS foundations cross project council meeting. We meet every other week now. And you are working sessions on the off week. Thank you for. Joining everybody. And do we have any announcements? I mean, I say that, but I have a whole list of things. So maybe I'll start and then we can see if I missed anything. And I actually have them written down as notes. So I will drop them in the notes here. Oh, wow. Okay. That's a. That's probably fine. All right, cool. So announcements. We're all, you know, we're thinking about everyone on. With regards to the storms across the US. I know a lot of people are affected and power out and everything. So, you know, I hope everybody's doing okay. Yeah. Next up on my list here is the standards working group is having conversations with projects to weigh in on the work that we're doing. We still want to hear from all projects. So if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to ask them in the comments section. Already, or if you want to continue, please. Reach out to us. Marco had a major release version five. I think it was. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. But congratulations to Marco. The marketing meeting is canceled today. FYI. Web driver recently had a version seven update. Congratulations to them as well. AJV. JS had a version seven release as well. So congratulations to them. PEP enters emeritus status. Is that even how you say it? I don't think I've ever said that out loud. Is it PEP or PEP? I assume it's PEP. They moved to emeritus, which is something we'll actually talk about today. I think that's on the agenda. Okay. Oh, and thanks for fixing that. Yeah. Sorry. I'm looking at the notes here. The open JS world CFP has been extended to February 22nd, which really helps me because I haven't submitted any talks yet. So, so thank you. Oh, wow. Those are all URL defense. Okay. I'll fix all those URLs if somebody wants to delete them or, if anybody wants to delete them, they can do that. Okay. Where was I speaking of the CFP? We will be looking for help reviewing the CFPs. So the proposal. So if anybody is interested in helping, that would be great. You can reach out to me or Jory or Robin, Rachel. Any of the folks involved in the program committee. Any of the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the program committees work and the event and stuff. So if you have any interest in that there's a replay there. I added this to, I don't know, has any, is the Bloomberg membership stuff been talked about at all in this meeting. I don't recall it being talked about. But they're now a member. So that's great. Yeah. So what, what's, where, where did they come in at? Silver. Silver. Yeah. Great. So welcome Bloomberg folks. It's really great to have you all. And then finally, I'm, I'm, you know, happy to announce that. I'll be at a week late. Sarah won the board director. So thanks of course to Toby and Sarah for, for volunteering. I think either way, we would be, you know, really well represented. And so I appreciate both of them stepping up. But Sarah, you know, one, so congratulations to Sarah. I pink her, she does not seem to be online. But I congratulate her nonetheless. And I let her know, so she's aware. And I also updated the, the issue with the announcement a couple of minutes before this meeting. So, so yeah, we have a new director, which is exciting. Yeah. Great. And that was, and that was kind of, that was besides my being a week late, my brain is mush. I think that was a smooth election. I feel like we, things were bumpy in the past and we're, we're kind of getting things a little bit smoother. So that's great. That is my long list of announcements. I apologize, but I got through them. So thank you. Did I miss anything? No, it was a big week. Congratulations, everybody. Welcome, Sarah. Thanks, Toby. Yeah. Yeah, good stuff. Yeah. Thanks. Thanks, Joe. Great. Cool. Anything else, you know, the board or anything that we need to bring up. Yeah. Yeah. And it comes to mine to me. Cool. What is the next meeting? 16th. I think it's, I always have to look at my calendar, but I think it's like two weeks, a week from Friday, the 26, perhaps. Great. And I don't know, Michael, if you can reach out to Sarah or we can have Chris, anyone can like help onboard her or anything. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I just want to sort of process around that. Yeah. It's the 26th. I think Brian would usually get her added to the invites and all that kind of stuff. Cause I don't necessarily have the ability to, to do any of that. Yeah. I'll reach out to her and I've done onboarding with new folks as well as Todd Moore, our board president. So. I think she needs to hit the ground running and be successful. Yeah. I can definitely touch base with her in advance, just to see if she has any questions or whatever. So. Great. Great. Thank you. Cool. All right. So we'll jump into things. Excuse me. The first item on the agenda is the criteria to move a project to emeritus. Some discussion was born out of the announcements. And I think that the, the project progression document says that there should be a two thirds vote, which in this instance seems like maybe it would have been more than what would have been needed. I mean, just, you know, thinking about the process. So there are some comments here. Emily, you have, I think a good suggestion here. If you want to share any thoughts. In brief, rather than requiring two thirds vote when the, okay. So we have two different cases to consider. One is when we do have still active leadership on the project and one when we do not. And for when we do not have active leadership on the project, I think the current situation of requiring the two thirds vote or enabling a two thirds vote of the CPC to, to allow a project to be considered emeritus is entirely valid and proper. And I think that for the case with the project leadership is, is asking is active and it is asking for it. I don't think it's appropriate to require in that case, the two thirds vote, but rather just require a sense or consent. Of. PC. All that action. Yeah, that makes sense. Jordan, you had a comment. Yeah, I was just kind of like. I keep approaching this question with from different angles and from one angle. Of course, if the project leadership is done with the project, they should be able to just summarily do that. And the only involvement with the foundation should just be making sure that it's unsetted responsibly, right? However, one of the huge benefits and sell in like selling points of a foundation is succession and ensuring the project survive after the maintainers are done. So if the maintainers are done, but there's others interested in carrying on the project, the maintainers should shouldn't be able to kill a project that the community still wants or that people, other people still want to take, you know, take over. However, absent a foundation and open source, usually this, the answer here is just make a new project with a new name and like deal with it and then like and fork it. And that's fine too. So there's like, I don't know. I can't come up with a prescriptive process in any direction that I think satisfies all of, you know, the possible angles that I'm, you know, the three I've mentioned, plus I'm sure there's many others, but it doesn't feel right to require a two thirds vote. Also, so I'm kind of like, I'm just conflicted because it doesn't, it similarly doesn't feel right to just say, maintainers can just do it. Yeah, that makes sense. Toby, you've got something. Yeah, no, I just believe that it's probably simpler just to do that on a case per case basis and actually have a conversation about it when it shows up rather than trying to organize the thing beforehand. And so I would suggest that the CPC should actually have a vote for that reason, even if that vote is essentially rubber stamping what the project has decided. Should it be a vote? Should it be a vote though, or just like a call for objections or I literally don't care about the difference between these things. And I frankly don't think that they matter actually. I think we should be striving for consensus driven of decision making as often as we can. And I think this is, I think a lot of the cases we're asking for two thirds of votes, we should probably move to consensus driven. So, but that's a separate conversation, right? So either like it doesn't matter. I don't think it effectively matters to whatever people are comfortable with. I'm happy with. But I don't think we should have upfront think of different paths upfront and like try to figure out every corner case because we want, and it's just going to be a waste of time now. And there's not, this is going to happen like twice a year. So I think we can do that and build. So if you want to be fair, built like a, you know, like we have to move back to how we did this last time. Like I don't think we should be spending too much time on that. I do agree that like closing this, I mean, moving this project to emeritus was out talking to the CPC. As was also awkward. So I'm glad to evenly brought that up. Yeah, I think back to your point, it does make sense to have a checkpoint, whatever that is where the CPC, and I think Emily's point as well is like, there should be a checkpoint. Okay, yeah, we understand that. And yeah, that's what makes sense. I'm on the same side with you in terms of like, whether it's a vote or a consensus or whatever is secondary. In this case, I think the point is, is we should probably move. Like, and you said the larger questions, we move them all make sense. But like in this case, since we're talking about it, we could agree to let's just move this to like consensus of the CPC. I'm not related notes. What I thinking about this, I think it might be good at the point when a project is, is seeking to enter emeritus. Or however you pronounce that to, to also consider at least asking for granting the, the OpenJS foundation admin access to the resources of that project so that if something does need to later be done with the project, it's not a situation where the, the OpenJS foundation is unable to do a thing because the developers are no longer really around. And it's an unmanaged in project, which is likely to happen with emeritus projects. We already do have access to resources from an understanding of the infrastructure to the domains and all the IP things around that. But of course, you know, the code is on GitHub. Yeah. So, so what I'm asking is, is asking for admin access to the, to the repos and also asking admin access to any NPM packages, for instance, that those projects have that sort of assets. Yeah. Right. We actually do have that on, on some of those as well. And I believe this one, so. That would be part of a good off-boarding or. Yes. A checklist of like, Hey, you're going, you're going to become emeritus. You're okay here. And this, this and this over would make a lot of sense. Yeah. Yes. So we should have like an off-boarding checklist essentially. Yes. This was done very thoughtfully. We do meet with the jQuery team weekly on infrastructure. So. Oh, I'm clear. Like, I don't think like the feeling of the CPC is that you were not doing your job. The feeling of the CPC is that. This seems like an area we should have visibility into when it would just like realize that we didn't. And so it's kind of weird. No, I totally get it. Yeah. Totally agree. Great. Yeah. The other thing is, and there have been times, not this time when maintainers have decided to deprecate their libraries because they believe that it's no longer applicable to the ecosystem. And that is not a universally held opinion. And like, although in this case, it's fine. I think that I could foresee some projects. Joining the foundation and then deciding they were done. And I wasn't ready to have them be done. And I would want the opportunity to take them over and keep them going because if I thought it was important to. Keep it going. So that was sort of also part of my thinking around it. And we could imagine a call for like maintainers even in some cases, something like that. And in particular, being able to do that, not only to sort of reverse a project going into a meritor's, but also if it comes up afterwards. So a project goes into a meritor's. And a year later, somebody realizes that actually this is still a thing that needs to be alive to be able to, for us to have the facility to effectively be able to make that happen. All right. Well, that all makes sense. What are, what, what, what do we have like action items out of this that we want to do, you know, update maybe the language in the project progression, create an off-boarding checklist. And then we can, you know, get that work done sometime in the near future. I'll file a PR with the change. I suggest that in the comment there. For this particular. For changing from 2000 to consensus. But I think in addition to action points are required for the off-boarding checklist. In addition to that. Great. Well, I think maybe it makes sense. To create an issue for just an off-boarding checklist. Just to track that. And then, you know, what this PR can, this issue can close with EMILY's PR at a minimum. Makes sense. Cool. If anybody can make a quick issue, that would be great. I'll file the issue. Excellent. I will move on. I know, Michael, you did a lot of work here on the next issue. Rename master branches. Yeah. So I don't know if there's any more comments in there. Let me just take a look. But basically, you know, they're all renamed. I don't think any, I haven't heard anybody noticing anything else. I don't know if there's any more comments in there. Let me just take a look. But basically, you know, they're all renamed. I don't think any, I haven't heard anybody noticing anything yet. So that's good. I checked them. Was that? I checked them. They're all good. Good. So the only thing that remains is that, you know, we need to go through. Okay. So you actually checked up. Oh, there's no references to master in any of the. No, I did not do that. Right. So we need to go through like that's where, maybe I will uncheck all of those. Like basically, Oh, that's what you meant. Okay. Yeah. Sorry. That's fair. So now we need to go through is actually and see if there's any references to the. The master branch either, you know, either locally or to external repos in all of those. And fix them up and then we can be done. So if anybody has time, that's something they can, you know, pick one of them, go through, see if there's any instances and submit a PR to fix them. Great. And that's as simple as just going into the repo. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I'm just typing master into the search box and seeing if any, anything comes up in the code. Essentially. I, that might work the way I would typically do it is clone the repo, do a grep. And if nothing shows up, but I think, you know, the search, the search might work just as well. That might get you more though, because it's going to find things and like issues and stuff like that too. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Cool. And then we had talked about like capturing any learnings or any advice or anything. I have the hack and B file in there, but I don't know if there's really much to share. I mean, I think it could be interesting in terms of helping other projects. And maybe we use that as other projects kind of go through and capture learning so that we can share more or do we just, you know, I know a lot of other people in the community are also creating these sorts of documents. I think having that doc, if anybody finds any problems, like, I don't know if anybody hasn't, has some problem after having just, just rename them. I'd say like in a month or so, if there isn't anything there, we should just close it, but otherwise. Sounds good. It's a good idea. Cool. All right. Well, thanks everybody for working on that. Next item here on the agenda. So they'll open this, I think this was, yeah, from a discussion on the open JS world planning about creating a new Twitch channel for open, the open JS foundation. Yeah, so this came up in the discussion for the opening is planning. So we'd like to create a Twitch channel for an open use foundation. So if anybody has any experience on that, any remarks, don't have a big opinion on this. What's going to go in that Twitch channel or think like AMAs would make sense. I think maybe this was even born out of the idea of like watch parties and stuff around the event itself, which we could lean on. So I think we should have some sponsors, sponsors to help with that as well. Who may already have some following. So I don't know, because I know just having a Twitch channel, you know, it takes some effort to get, you know, people there and consistent content and everything. And I think we would have good stuff. I just don't know if it's regular enough that, that's a lot of people would start to follow there. So I don't know. I guess through, go ahead. Sorry. Yeah. And the idea is like to build an audience around it. And then probably we can use that for the conferences and AMAs to build the entire audience around it. Because if you're doing AMAs on YouTube and things like that, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, you know, if you're doing AMAs on YouTube and things like that, it's not completely work out, but in which you have this platform ready and you can use that platform and we could also extensively use that for some coding and stuff like that. The only problem that we have is what Joe mentioned is basically we need to build it. If you're going to build an audience, we have to be regular on that and we have to do certain things and we have to prepare for that. So that is something that we have to think about. So I don't know, Robin since Rachel is not here, might, if you know whether like, is it something that we're strategically going to be looking at? I think, you know, we were working to try and build the YouTube views along with the other channels. I'm just wondering if this is one of the things that's been considered discussed or. Yeah, I mean, the YouTube has been great for delivering content, but the interaction and engagement on the channel itself has not been as robust as, for example, a Twitch channel. So again, we thought about it. Initially we thought perhaps for coding workshops, but we wanted to be able to have some email entry into that. Just to sort of set the number of participants. But the view parties would be cool. I think our, the only concern is to, you do need to build up a community and we may not have the resources to do that. So if we did watch parties, alternatively we could rely on some of the Twitch channels from you all, right? You have developer Twitch channels and you may want to adopt a region or a country and host a watch party. That would be another good option. So we just wanted to see if this was something that you all thought would be great for us to build up. Cause I guess it just comes back to like if we can't necessarily have all of our, all the channels that are possible. So which ones of which ones do we choose to focus on? Yeah, like Darcy says, you can stream both to YouTube and Twitch. For Twitch to be successful, we need you in the community to really be more driving that content. We're great at, because you're hosting. We're great at working with you all and creating content, but on that live, the live stuff would be best with you all. I would also recommend not doing a split stream to YouTube and Twitch. It ends up creating a split of viewership that doesn't actually engage the audience, which means then you don't get, you don't get growth on the channel and you don't get engaging in a meaningful way, which then doesn't actually lead to being an effective platform. Yeah, that makes sense. What are your thoughts, Jeremy? Is it something that we should be investing in? Would you be wanting to invest in it? Or do you think relying on our member sponsors would be best? I think if it's something we want to do, it's something that we need to have a lot of people, like multiple people being willing to weekly do content on it. And I just knowing how much, how stretched we are already, I don't know if that's something that like from the outset, I can imagine us succeeding within the long term, just because of how engaged we all are in different areas already. Yeah, I guess I agree with Tierney, but I do wonder about like, I don't know how much we're getting out of YouTube. And in fact, I haven't been able to comment on our live streams for a couple of weeks. I've like tried to reach out to them. In fact, now I'm getting this weird monkey in the chat bar. Something went wrong. So like, I don't think I haven't gotten anything out of the YouTube live stream aspect. But we do have meetings pretty much every week, a couple of times a week in terms of the working groups and the CPC. You know, I guess a consideration could be to just switch to Twitch and then archive the videos on YouTube for later and then see if we get any engagement on Twitch that way. I will be very upfront. I don't think that's going to be an engaging piece of content for Twitch. Like that, that's, that is us, like, you know, we're all talking to each other. I know certain folks try to pay attention to like the chat on YouTube. We've never really got an engagement on YouTube. And honestly, there's like thinking about like watching it myself. I don't know what I would engage with. Like there's nothing really to engage with as an audience member in this, that I wouldn't just come and join the meeting because you can like, we relatively have these open. So I don't know if that's going to be like an engaging piece of content. And I mean, even, you know, the views on like the node streams historically have been like, it's basically bots watching it. I honestly see the YouTube archive of node streams is just like accountability and us being able to reference something we said 10 years ago. But there are that many bots? Because I see hundreds of views. Yes. Yeah, that's all good. That's not that's not going to be people sitting there watching the streams. That's especially over years. Like if that was actually people, that would have gone up over over years. That's going to be. I think I see like several hundred within a week. Yep. That's that they will they will they will view it as it goes up. Like it will be early on and then it will die out so that that I mean, that's also just going to be how their algorithm works. But that's like, we're not going to be getting, you know, people watching the full video from that. If that were the case and if that were something that people were actively interested in, that those views would have gone up over time from being a consistent, like if you have a consistent number on YouTube, that's not getting actual views. Interesting. Yeah, well, I mean, I must say that I tried to follow a couple of times the board meetings on the recording and it sucked the most boring thing over. Sorry, but if you can't be part of it, it's horrible. Boring is a bad thing. Yeah. Yeah. That's it. Praise. Praise. Fair enough. But I mean, that's the point you want to make. Yeah, absolutely. I don't know. I don't know. I'm hearing you back a little bit. Thank you. I don't know who it was. Thank you. Yeah. I think that, you know, over time that the node, if node was getting consistent views, then we like the platform, the platform would have grown and it hasn't. And like, I've, you know, thought that for years and I'm not particularly concerned about it. Like, I think it's a great tool for us to have every single meeting archived. Like that's excellent. And we can go back and refer to things we talked about five years ago. But at the, yeah, like I, I don't think that that changes how we should approach this, but I also think that it is a good, good sign that Twitch is not a place to stream working, working group meetings. And like I'm, I'm talking to node just because that's been my experience. And it's also like a lot of how the open days foundation, how like working groups and stuff work is like similar. So there's going to be parallels there, which is why I'm bringing up nodes specifically. Cool. Well, I appreciate your perspective and I, that's informative. Um, I say, uh, we, we perhaps close this issue and, and, you know, folks in the marketing committee or, or whatnot can discuss it further, the program committee and see if there is any reason to do anything that, but, um, I don't think there's too much more to do on this issue. One question there. We've talked about effectively. Well, a lot of that. Okay. Sorry. Uh, so, uh, we've talked about how the, uh, the, the board meetings or the CPC meetings are effectively boring content for outsiders. But how about the AMAs? Are we tracking what sort of engagement we're getting on those on, on YouTube and, and because that's really the concept that I understood that we were talking about originally about possibly moving to Twitch. The AMAs in real time have, uh, few viewers, but where we, uh, really get the audience is when we do a time stamp video blog. So it makes it easy for those in different time zones in the world to watch it at their own pace and, and skip to the pieces. Most important to them. So in real time, not as much, but they've been popular after, after they air. Yeah. I'm trying to see if I could find one there on the open JS stream account, right? Yeah. Sorry. If you look at the node certification with Dave and Adrian, I think that was. Right. So show all. Here we go. Oh, that didn't work. I can see. Content. And so we taught, we do split eyeballs a little bit too. We get a blog out of that. So we'll have measurements, um, on the blog and on YouTube on the AMA. Or I'm actually going to, maybe I search on views. No. How about play Rachel created playlists? Playlists. Okay. That can't be right. That may be just something on the open. Just AMAs. No. There's in the notes. There's a link to, at least the, um, recent CFP AMA. But there's a playlist, but now it's not actually showing me the views. Okay. So it shows like 107 views on the, one of the recent ones. I don't know. Like, yeah. I mean, cause I've seen like 500 on some of the other, um, meeting recordings. So I don't, I don't know how to compare them to be honest at this point. We can think about it. That's something we could go back and look at for sure. Okay. Let's, uh, on the way. Now I found some. So yeah, here's a few like, you know, 600, 400. Kind of views. For the AMAs is what I'm seeing here, which isn't bad. It's pretty good. Yeah. So yeah, I agree. Sorry, go ahead. No, go ahead. We see the same for some of the, um, the meeting recordings as well. So it's like, I wouldn't, I wouldn't say we should, you know, we should ignore those. Like some of them are like 40 and some of them are 500. So I think. Unless the bots can figure out which ones they like or not, it does seem like there's more views of some. For sure. Well, I'm sort of agree with Tierney. I mean, to have a great engagement, you need to have weekly, uh, content. So, um, I'm good with closing it. I would just also invite anyone who has a twitch channel who wants to invite folks from over JS to talk about our projects. Please hit that like button. And if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. And I also have a panel who wants to invite folks from over JS to talk about our projects. Please hit us up. Let me talk to her. You see whether they are interested in doing something like this. If we have someone interested from the projects multiple projects interested in do something like this, then we could schedule them and then try to put them in an order. Then have a weekly content or something like that. I think like I would love to see us do that. I think just making sure that like we need to have a commitment to do it and not be like, you know, I mean, I think we all understand that at this point. Yeah, I think that's the thing is like we would want to get a commitment. I think it's worth discussing in the marketing meeting and the program meeting further and we can go from there. Cool. All right. Moving on. Next item in the agenda is the CPC director election. Again, thank you, Toby, and congratulations, Sarah. I will move on as we have 15 minutes and there's not much else to talk about there. Next up is improving diversity and inclusion at the OpenJS Foundation. Issue 699. Toby, you were taking notes and stuff last week and kind of driving things. Do you have anything you want to share here on this? I really didn't prepare anything. I need to link the notes. I think Sarah and I have an idea. I think what I can share is we have decided as a group to start by surveying the CPC members to see how we feel about this as the CPC. Sarah and I are going to prepare a set of questions based on what stack overflow users for the surveys that it creates every year. And we will share that with the CPC, see how people feel about answering those questions, and then if the CPC is happy about it, figure out was the Foundation had to extend that survey to every project, essentially. So I think that was one of the key takeaways from that meeting. Robin, you were there also. Are there other things that come to mind that were important, other points like that? I can also go check the notes. No, I think you're spot on. I've also been digging deeper into the chaos project and their metrics as well. And that's evolving. So I've gone into their meeting notes to see where they are. So I can bring you all up to speed for next working session. Oh, and there are two other things on this topic that I'd like to quickly share. I actually took the Linux Foundation course on inclusive speaking. I thought it wasn't bad. I didn't think it was the most exciting content ever. It felt a bit dated. So I think it's good for people to take it. I would love for it to be something a bit more modern and enticing in that space. So if anyone hears of something, that would be very useful. And then the other thing is I'm also part of the group that works on these issues at the W3C. And they're actually very curious about what we're trying to do and would love to sync. And so I think that's also an interesting future perspective to do is work with other similar organizations to try to tackle these things collectively rather than separately. And that curriculum at the LF was developed by a national women and tech organization. Yeah. I think it's good that it exists. I still maintain that. It was painful. I'm being a bit too severe. No, I think it's great that it exists. It felt very corporate. Okay. This maybe is more polite. I'll ask quickly while we're on this issue. Should we plan to do the working session next week on this again and continue progress? I think we should, Sarah and I should find the time to work on this and bring a set of questions and then share those with you in a week and get you input. Okay. If we wanted to do any sort of async chatter in Slack, I don't know if we should create a channel or if we just want to use the CPC channel or something, but feel free to share anything or we can talk there as well. Cool. For the sake of time, I will move on. The next item is 673. This is a Google summer of code 2021. I'm noticing that this application's closed on February 19th. So this is kind of a last bit of notice. If any projects want to get involved, reach out to Brian or operations at OpenJSF.org, I would imagine. Unless anybody has anything else there, I will move on. Remove growth stage. This is pull request 650. Where are we on this one? So I felt like this had been broadly approved and it just needed to be merged, but it hasn't been and so I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not. I'm not sure either. Emily, you're muted. Let's just merge it. We're not actually waiting for anything anymore. Great. Let's do that. Yeah. And along the same lines, there's a pull request in the project status. I think that was merged, but I'm not sure. So if you get a moment, Toby, you want to pull those both in, that would be great. Can I merge them myself? Is that cool? Yep. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I'll do that. Yeah. I mean, once you have the, there are CPC members who've approved and there's no objections and it's been passed whatever the amount of time is that we have in our governance, so then the authors can go ahead and do it. Okay. Cool. I'll try to remember that for the next time. I won't, but I will try. Cool. So then the only one left is the DCO-CLA issue, 632. That's all I was waiting on Brian to do some work. Okay. Cool. That looks like it is our agenda. So cool. We kind of landed in right about time. Is there anything else that we want to talk about in the last nine minutes, or should we call it a wrap? Sure. I can give you all a quick update. Some of you may know that we became aware that a cloud hosting company SkySilk was using Linux Foundation and Node.js trademarks to market their business, which is the new business, or actually not a new business, but they're hosting Parler. So the LF just released, I will paste it in Twitter, a tweet with this copy of the cease and desist letter that we sent to SkySilk. So it is public, so you're welcome to take a look at that. I'm looking at it. Does it mention the Node.js logo at all? I'm trying to scan it. It does in the cease and desist letter. I don't see it, but regardless. Oh, there it is. Number two, remove the Node.js logo. Okay. I don't know if we should. It's in the first paragraph as well. Oh, is it? Got it. Yeah. Okay. So Tierney, I don't know if we should put something together for the Node account as well, just to reiterate this. Can't it not be that tweet for you all? I'll read it real quick and then probably just read tweet the LF post. Great. Thank you, Tierney. And thank you, Robin and everyone at the LF. Cool. That's messy. Thank you. But otherwise, that's all we got. So we'll call it a wrap. I appreciate everyone taking the time to hang out and get some work done. And I look forward to seeing you all soon. Great. Thank you, everyone. Bye.