 And I'll just wait until it fires up so I can grab the link and copy paste and say hi friends. All right. Friends. There we go. Sorry, I'm typing in the chat. Welcome to another episode of the open JS foundations cross project council meeting. Today is the 13th of April. Thanks everybody for joining. And anyone watching later on. Thank you. Folks who are here. Drop your name in the Google doc. And we can get started. Do we have any announcements? I just wanted to let folks know that the Linux foundation. Linux foundation training is doing a program wide scholarship right now. It goes through April 30th. And anybody, you know, folks are encouraged to apply if you're interested in certification or training. It applies to the Node JS trainings, but it applies to the entire portfolio of trainings and certifications that the LF offers. We did post something on our blog and we posted and we tweeted that. So all the information is out there and we encourage everybody or anybody who feels that they qualify to apply. Great. Can you drops a little bit of those details into the notes? I would be happy to reshare the tweet and whatnot. So great, exciting. Another short announcement. The standards working group is going to meet this afternoon. And this was a rescheduling from the conflict from last week. So join us at 2pm Eastern if you are interested. And in that, got some stuff to work on. I think it's going to be fun. Didn't you get nominated to something recently? Jory, is that, is that an announcement? AC at W3C or? Yeah. So that we had done a. Period to see if anybody wanted to, to be our W3C advisory council rep. And that, that closed. Like a couple of weeks ago actually at this point and that's me hi. So if you have a community group or an interest group or something you want to get involved with at the W3C, I will be posting announcements and things like that in our standard Slack channel. One of which was super cool that they announced this morning. And there's going to be a new spec editors community group that Marcos Caseros is chairing. Very excited about that. Definitely plays well. And of course Jordan walks off because I'm staring at Jordan. Like this, this is for you. He's like, I'm out of here. That anyway, so cool, cool opportunities. Lots of things to cook in there. So come on. Down to standards are us. I'm actually right in the middle of signing up for an account. So I can join it. Thank you. Nice. Cool. Great. I just want to quickly point out that there's been some pushback on the mailing list to have a community group about this and not use the existing mailing list. So don't get overexcited about it yet. Okay. Good, good. I dropped a couple of notes in the meeting notes, but if anybody can jewelry, if you can flush that out a little further, that'd probably be great. And yeah, folks can help taking meeting notes. That would be great. I don't know if Jordan, if your child can type, this would be a great way to get involved. Cool. So we can jump into the agenda. I guess I'll ask, are there any board meeting updates? Any, any board stuff? I can update next week is the next board meeting. We also do have an agenda, the discussion around the travel fund, but we could leave that to the issues on the agenda if we want to. Okay, great. Great. We'll do that. Excellent. Cool. So getting into the agenda, the, which is not a very long one. So we'll see how long we spend time together today. The first thing here is from the summit repo. And this is about the collaborator summit. I know that this was talked about a couple of sessions ago. Jory, you have an update in here. And I think, you know, I think maybe the general ideas that's, you know, we won't do something around open JS world, but that's, you know, we're open to other options. And I know in the tooling group, there's no JS tooling group. We were talking about stuff doing something in the fall, either virtual or, you know, potentially in person. So I think maybe the summary is. Collab summits are great. We're not going to do it with this event, but let's figure out how to do them either virtually or in person. At some point over the coming months. So that's definitely the summary with one of the things that I think we're starting to look at is whether there's an LF event that is likely to happen in person that we could say co-locate with because that's a cost sharing opportunity for us. And it's just still super. Yeah. I'm just wondering what, if any. Elements, LF events will be proceeding for in person and how comfortable people will be traveling. So it's something we have to monitor. Yeah. Yeah. And I wonder too, like what we can provide as the CPC and the foundation to help groups to do even like many collapse summits, whether it's a platform or, you know, a virtual collaboration platforms. I'm not, not that we wouldn't spend, I know those things are really expensive, but ways that we can help people to figure out getting together and collaborating. I don't know what that means exactly, but thinking about the tooling stuff, I'd love to spend the day working on some stuff with those folks. And it may just be, let's just have a day long meeting, block our calendars, whatever. Anyway. I like clubs on it. So. Cool. Yeah, definitely a club summits. Good. I kind of remembered we wanted to just wait a little bit to see if we'd be able to do one in person since we thought those were better. It seems like we probably still won't know that till, I don't know, end of the summer or something. Yeah. Probably then it's like, if it's not looking good by then, we might want to say, okay, if it's going to be, if we're going to be able to do something, it's virtual. So let's start planning that or, or not, depending on. Yeah, we could certainly provide virtual tools, but if you all feel comfortable at the end of the year, we can either again, co-locate perhaps with the LF or even talk to our members about using their venues for space as well. So. Yeah. And I'm even trying to think through like, in the Node.js community, you know, there are lots of groups and people working on different things. Like if we want to do something virtual, what would that look like? I think doing it all at once is maybe not the best, but you know, coming up with other ideas to, you know, have some sort of collapse on it would be great. But anyway, we can, we can keep thinking about it and see how things play out over time and discuss it within our groups as well and see what makes sense. Cool. Do we think that we need to keep this issue open or I mean, we can leave it open if we want, but maybe take the agenda label off. I'm not sure what people think. I think we could take the agenda off for now. I agree. So I just did that. Great, but if anybody ever wants to talk about it, please feel free to bring it up. I'm happy to discuss it further as things go further. Great. So that leads us into the next issue, which Michael mentioned earlier, the travel fund allocation for 2021. I'll turn this over to. Michael and I see Toby had a comment. So not too long ago as well. Yeah. So I mean, the update was, we did have a good discussion in the board meeting. The decision was that we needed to push it to the. The finance committee because the finance committee is the one who reviews the, the budget and works with the budget. So that hasn't happened yet. So that's the next step is it's going to be discussed in the, in the finance committee recommendation goes back to the board. And then we'll come back to. To the thing, but we did have the, you know, the discussion around the different suggestions of how it, you know, the funds might be used and so forth. Okay. And I would just add kind of just overall supportive. Right. Michael. Yeah, exactly. There was nobody saying, oh no, no, we need to keep, you know, yeah, it was like, yeah, you know, we, yes. Yeah. It was back to that. Yeah. Yeah, we just made the, the, the, the, the change based on, Hey, we don't think we're going to use it. And so let's go back to, okay, if there's proposals for how, how to use it else wise, then yeah, let's figure out what we do there. Okay. The generally supportive bit is, I appreciate that part. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry. Should have mentioned that. No, no. And if I can just say something here, like this is a great example of like the CPC and the board working well together to like, you know, do the right thing and like have the right, show the right perspective of what it is that the overall organization wants to do. So I think this is something to cherish and applaud some kind of, I think this is great. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Agreed. And yeah, thank you to Michael and Sarah and Robin as well. Cool. All right. So we'll leave that one. So the one thing I will add is, you know, I think something the CPC could do in parallel is to work on, you know, the concrete proposals of how we might, you know, the other ways of using the money. So if we wanted to get started on that, I don't think there's any reason to wait for, yeah, we've changed this line item or not, right? Like, because it could be like, well, yeah, that makes sense, but let's create a new line item. What does the proposal look like? Let's put this back or I don't know what, but all of those would be supported by, and here's our proposal for, you know, what would we, what would we wanted to approve, you know, the CPC to approve spending it on and what would be the process for doing that? Kind of like, you know, we have a well documented process, how people request funds for travel. You know, here's how the CPC approves them. So us working on a write up for that, what I think would be, would be helpful. I'm sorry, it's not clear to me. Like what other, what other things are people thinking about in terms of other ways to use the money? I think Toby had put some in, like, you know, we could potentially use it to support, you know, underrepresented minorities in some other way, right? Like, you know, Robbins mentioned things like, you know, sponsored certifications or, you know, I think there's, there's a number of different ideas. And that's where I'm not, you know, we don't have a, a well-defined here's the ask, right? So I think the more we, you know, if we start thinking about that and write up what that would look like, the better prepared we'll be to actually execute on it too. Okay. And where should we do that in this particular issue or a new issue or, or. I would think a new issue that says like, you know, hey, we want to, the CPC wants to spend money on X, you know, and here's the process of how we would go, you know, how we would manage that bucket. Yeah. Okay. That's great. I, I, the scholarship idea I think is great. The way so we can help under represented groups. I think would be fantastic. Cool. All right. Well, let's, let's get an issue going for that and drop some ideas in there and we can iterate in the issue and see what else we can come up with. And I also wonder too, if things do get better, I realize that, you know, things are progressing at different levels in different parts of the world. Some, some parts maybe aren't even progressing. I don't mean to laugh. That's the world's crazy. The uncomfortable laugh. Yeah. So, you know, I hope that we can do some traveling, but I realized that that might not really be the case. We'll see. Cool. All right. So yeah, I'd be happy to iterate on some ideas to, to use the money in other ways. That'd be great. Excellent reminder. Anybody who can drop some notes in the dock would be really appreciated. Jumping to the next one, improve diversity, equity and inclusion at the open JS foundation. I don't know if we have much here. I had some full up items to do. One of which was to organize a meeting was interested parties at the open JS foundation and W3C. And for this, I'm still waiting for one of the two vendors. I contacted around the survey to get back to me. They requested the delay because they had some other things going on this week. And so I should hear about them, I think next week. And so I'll follow up at that point. What was really interesting was that the last vendor I talked to was suggesting that working was different organizations like W3C to do this would very much lighten the cost because a lot of the infrastructure to run the survey and the survey design itself, et cetera, could be shared and they were willing to work like that, which I thought was really cool. Yeah, that'd be great. Cool. All right. We'll keep us posted. I'm interested and happy to continue to participate there. Moving on. And this is the last one and I'm not sure there's much here on this one. This is issue 632 provide implementation guidance for DCO and CLA. I know we're still waiting on some folks to do some work on the robot DCO or their projects to incorporate some upstream changes, as mentioned in the issue. I'm assuming there's no updates there. No updates. Brian is, you know, in communication with them as well. Just they haven't quite got to it yet. Okay, great. That is our last issue, but I see Emily hopefully pasted the guidance about graduating projects from incubation. And this is language is very familiar now that I see it there. That's a pull request that functions as like any other pull request. Go ahead, Emily. So one related thought of that that I noticed is that we actually currently have some requirements for moving from at large to impact that we are not applying for projects directly coming in as the impact. And before coming in at large in the requirements for that, I noticed that we have a requirement for a presentation of the project with the CPC, which I don't recall having happened for our incoming projects. Okay, that's, that's interesting. I'm glad you've noticed those things. I'm wondering, do we create an issue to look at some of these things and also do we have an expectation that native script would come in as a result of the presentation? I would think that that would be a little, because this, if I'm reading this correctly, that's something that we have not applied to any incubating project that's, that's come in. So it seems like this is, it would be not exactly fair to suddenly apply that is my take, but I think we can add requirements. Like if we think this is the right thing going forward, I don't think we should say we can never do something because we didn't ask anybody else to do it. But on the other hand, Well, that's not what I'm saying. Yeah, what I'm saying is this is clearly not something that we like, this feels like something we may have created as before we had any incubating projects whatsoever. And maybe at the time we thought it would add value, but it's clearly not something that we've been missing. So my point is, does this add, doesn't seem like it adds value to our process and less time? I would, in general, I would feel that having a new project actually explicitly present themselves would be valuable. However, I feel as you do, that applying this sort of rule now suddenly to a project relatively late stage is kind of unfair. But we should at least get the language within that document to match itself so that we have one set of requirements that we are presenting for proceeding. It might make sense to do it earlier on in the process. Like basically, I don't know, if part of the initial phase before they come in, or even just like once they're accepted as incubating, it might be a good time to sort of say like, hello, we're now coming in. Here's, you know. Yeah, I agree with all three of you. Okay. I'll find an issue about the mismatch here, but also presented in a way where I'm saying that explicitly we do not at least have an active sense that we need to be applying all of these rules to projects that are currently in incubating, or as we have not applied them to previous ones. Okay, that would be great. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay, cool. Do we have any other business? Anything else we want to discuss with our last 29 minutes? I just added a asynchronous quote here for a bit of an update on the cloud space. So the package minutes and vulnerability reporting cloud space that Michael Dawson helped me get kicked off there. So I had a quick meeting with Rachel and Jory last week in terms of marketing and cons. And I'm trying to coordinate a kickoff meeting with the folks who identified themselves as wanting to participate. So I got a tracking issue there and hopefully get some traction and be reporting up sort of quick updates to this group as we go along. Great. Sounds great. I don't know if you were saying you did this, but if you could drop a note in the meeting notes, that would be great. Cool. Glad to hear that. Anything else anyone wants to share or talk about? If not, I'm happy to give folks back some time. And I guess one thing to comment on is next working session. Is that where you're going to go, Jory? Exactly. And so our next working session is obviously next Tuesday. And the slated item is discussion of, and actually this whole comment about the incubation process is super salient to that because we're going to talk about our strategy there and sort of how we onboard new projects, which projects we think are great fits for our foundation, et cetera. So do tune in if that is a topic of interest to you. We've got a new issue that itemizes all of our meetings. And so if there is a working session that you want to propose, that we cover in the future, we can, we can put that in, in that list and give everyone a heads up what we'll be covering in this different working session. Great. Awesome. Cool. Yeah. So that's the working session is the same time as this meeting was today. Next Tuesday. So, you know, what is it? 1700. I'm always nervous, nervous quoting a time zone other than my own. Same time as today in a week. So yeah, hope to see folks there. Anything else before we sign off? All right. Well, stay safe, my friends. And I'll talk to you soon. Everybody. Hi, everyone. Hi folks. Hey, Emily, do you want to be in our video? I see that your daughter has added some nice new stickers to your outfit, Jordan. She has half decorated me. Yes. That's great. She's done a great job. Please pass on my appreciation. Yeah, you got it. Yeah, later.