 is going to record, and looks like we are recording. So welcome everybody to another rip roaring edition of the OpenJS Foundation Standards Working Group meeting. We have had something of a nice busy last few weeks with not just the OpenJS Foundation Collab Summit and the conference last week, which Sindel, you were missed, but was quite a good time. And then we also had the last two weeks ago, I don't know, it's all blurry together, TC39 meeting at the beginning of December. So those are probably the kind of activities to check in on or to report in on, in addition to the items in our agenda. Does anybody, Mike, Joe, we're, and I know Miles will be joining a little bit late and he was able to make the TC39 meeting. Is anybody wants to give like an update on an ordinance? Yeah, I unfortunately was not able to attend so I don't have any updates there. I did not plan anything. There was not a, I think, what are some notable things, the nullable stuff advanced. There was a lot of discussion about what is it, UUIDs and how to hash that out in kind of a general sense that that's something useful, but that there was no kind of resolution on how to present UUIDs without adding non-determinism to the language. I was, of course, pushing trusted types related proposals and there seems to be general consensus that there needs to be some way to mitigate code execution, arbitrary code execution by dynamic import unwisely used. Other than that, I think Mark Miller is has some compartments ideas. So instead of just realms interacting, there's an idea of something smaller than a realm which is, you know, can kind of fail separately and leave a larger system of cooperating compartments working. So it's kind of meant to allow degradation of a system even when part of it fails. And, you know, there's kind of nailing down more of what things like out of memory mean. And so, you know, kind of different engines do that differently these days, but kind of moving that towards moving failures that have previously been like, you know, an end of the world scenario to something that can be managed in a consistent way. I'm probably, I know there's at least one proposal that made stage four that I am forgetting, but that's kind of what I've got right now. I saw Miles join. Miles, we're just going over like, and Mike was just sharing a brief kind of report from the TC39 meeting. Anything you would want to add in terms of stuff our community should be knowing about talking about? Yeah, if it wasn't brought up and then please interrupt me if it was the module attributes proposal went to stage one. That's proposal that myself, Dan Ehrenberg, spend from the Webpack project and there's one other individual, Daniel, whose last name is Caste Me, our all champions on it's to help unblock some of the upstream issues that we had with JSON modules and subsequent other module format types. So, for context, JSON modules got specified within the HTML spec at what working group landed in the spec and at TPAC this past summer, there was pushback on the proposal specifically related to, or I guess it was October or September? Anyways, it was related to security concerns specifically that if there was no mechanism for the person who's fetching the module to explicitly state the format type, importing a thing.json, a server could respond with a payload that was JavaScript and give a text JavaScript mind type and it would just execute. There was nothing in the spec that protected against those cases and that was seen as a major hazard in security concern. So, no group of folks are examining a couple of different avenues to try to unblock this. One is the module attributes proposal which would either be a single string import thing as JSON or an object import thing with, and then braces and then type module and potentially some other attribute types. Went to stage one, there's still a bunch of debate and discussion that needs to happen around it, specifically around if there are to be arbitrary types and those types are kind of extendable by the host to be any type of types or if we wanna limit it to the single type field. But I think we've got some good progress right now. Most people are kind of hands off until the new year. We'll pick it back up. I think the hope would be that we can get something that's either moving towards or getting closer to stage two for the February meeting. But I think it might be aggressive to assume that we could have like get some consensus on the things we don't agree on and write spec texts by then. But I do expect there to be like an update during that meeting and more discussion. Obviously one of the things that comes to my mind is whether we know of peers in our project communities who'd wanna be getting involved in supporting any of this. And I'm sure that's something you've already thought about Myles, but just for the record, do we think like the security working group, the node security working group or any groups like that might be interested in following this? Are they already, what kind of notification do we wanna kind of lift up on any of this to the broader community? Yeah, I know that Dan has been doing is planning to continue to do like user outreach, one of which those groups could be security. We have had a number of the stakeholders from that team involved. I think that so far the focus has been more on like usability from a UX and developer experience, but some feedback from security definitely would be helpful. There's also work that's gonna be done in kind of like driving this proposal forward out of band as well. And so, be good to get some people's feedback on that as well. Thinking about that, are these little nuggets that I should perhaps be capturing and sharing in the weekly project email or is that's probably maybe too granular? What should we? I personally think there isn't like a ton of feedback to give it still such a raw proposal and the champions are definitely reaching out to different groups. I would say what may make sense since you have a direct line to him is maybe see if putting things in that, like if Dan's planning to run another user outreach session that seems like something to be good to put in the mailer? Yeah, yeah, good call. I should sync up with him and just make sure if he's got something he wants to run. Yeah, that's solid. Good idea. Rad. Speaking of meetings for the next, because you mentioned 2020. Does the committee have its 2020 meeting schedule lined out and do we think for the next meeting we will want to send someone from our cohort to participate? Where? I guess I can go look that up right now too while you're all right. The next committee meeting's in Hawaii. Oh, Hawaii, Hawaii. It's running in conjunction with JSConf Hawaii. I plan to be there already at the meeting and then the last day of JSConf Hawaii. I, like, especially considering it is Hawaii, I don't know if it makes a ton of sense for us to send members of our group there with the travel fund unless they have explicit, like, work that they're trying to get done where they've been brought in as an invited expert. But I'm happy to represent things from the group at that meeting in lieu of someone else being here. No, I think that's fair. That's quite a trip to make without a specific goal in mind. I plan to be attending remotely just FYS. That's a good point too, the remote attendance for proposals that people care about. Like, we can always try to help make that happen. Yeah, yeah, I know I agree with that. So I think maybe that's something to have feelers out about among this group if there is a proposal someone wants to track or participate in the discussion and you're totally right that we could arrange to make teleconference access available, but travel to Hawaii on the fund is probably not the best use of the funds. Yeah, I guess the one thing also, and this is more of a high level thought about it but not necessarily like an explicit thing, is like when we're thinking about delegates from our group and what they're representing, like generally, and not everyone respects this, but generally the expectation is like if you're a new delegate, you're coming, you're actually, ooh, Jory, I just had an idea. Sorry, we could potentially, similar to what the JS Foundation used to do via Baku, what if we help with sending folks to help with note taking? Yeah, yeah. The reason I got to that is because one of the challenges with just sending people to the meeting and it being meaningful for them is that you're not really expected to be super active in the meetings right away unless you're actively involved in a proposal. And well, general feedback is always helpful. It's generally more helpful before the meeting. Like if you have things to add into the discussion, it probably should be happening in GitHub. But there is an issue that's happening within the committee of not having enough people to take notes. And we very well could send delegates specifically with the intent of helping with note taking. I think that's a great idea. And I think another thing that I like about that, Miles, is it's also a great way to introduce and initiate like a diverse group of people into that space too, right? Yeah. So plus one to that idea. And I would even go as far as just to say like maybe for Hawaii, but maybe for other events as well that like it actually might be worthwhile depending on where the delegates coming from to actually help sponsor that because they do know for a fact that ECMA needs help with this. Yeah. So one question then for back to Hawaii. Hawaii is obviously quite a hall for a lot of folks. But maybe it's not such a hall for folks from like Asia, Japan, Australia. Or Korea, as well as the West Coast of the United States. It's not actually that bad. In fact, for folks in Asia, other than the Japan meeting, it's actually one of the closest meetings for them. Yeah. So on that, it might be interesting to see if we've got somebody from our community who would be really interested in attending and would be interested in like scribing. Yeah. Just as a quick point of order, Richard Gibson needs to be promoted. Oh, thank you. Sorry, Richard. Hold on. He just jumped on. OK. Here we go. Well, I always click away. Hey, Richard. I've got a quick question about kind of pre-meetings. For the people who are our regular TC39 attendees, do we run a meeting for project champions and those folks to kind of brief them on what's coming up and gauge their interest in various proposals? I think that that's reasonable. I think like we have this meeting as a bi-weekly meeting. I think it makes sense perhaps the one that's closest to the next TC39 meeting could be dedicated to that. I think that would be a nice service also. I see that as being perhaps jointly beneficial to our project communities and then also to project or proposal champions. I could probably prep a kind of a very brief summary on each of the things that are going up for stage advancement like a week prior and maybe just get people's feedback and answer questions. One way we've done this at Google that I found has been really effective has been like starting a doc that has all of the agenda items kind of similar to what Mike was suggesting and then just kind of let members of our group flag on the ones they think are the most important and they'd want to be briefed on. Then that allows us to kind of like stack rank because often there's enough agenda for three days of full plenary. It's hard to cover it all in one hour. So that becomes like a good way to figure out what to prioritize. We don't just kind of like prioritize the issues I find interesting or Mike finds interesting. Not that Mike, I don't trust you to be a good steward here. I actually think you do an amazing job but just getting more people involved would be helpful. I'm happy to prep a doc. I think credit for that particular style of running things I think goes to Shuya. So I can prep something in that vein. Awesome. Love that. Such good ideas we have. So then that's the next TC meeting, TC39 meeting. There's a CSS working group face-to-face meeting at EGALIA and I'm certain that Brian, I'm not certain, I'm relatively certain that Brian Cardell would be participating there but it's an event, it's on our radar and want to make sure to give equal weight to W3C stuff too. So if anybody's interested in that, I would reach out to Brian and also Dan, Amber for more details. Let's see. Other events, then I think just kind of rounding out the first quarter, just so things are on our radar, the TC39 plenary in Cooper team, in Cupertino and you know what, there's another event that's not on our calendar because it was set before. Let me go and Mark Miller and then we'll probably be interested in the TC53 meeting, in-person meeting is in Houston on the 25th and 26th. So I'm not sure Richard, I feel like this is one you might be interested in. You do nerd red stuff too, yes sir. I have in the past, but it's been a long time. Okay, well this is a committee that I think folks in our community will find interesting and want to participate in but I just don't know how to like localize it for them right now, right? Because it's a new committee and there's not much to, there's a lot of conversations happening on their mailing list, but there's not a lot of proposals and stuff coming forward yet. So this is just something I want to keep on our radar, but you know bearing in mind that I'm trying to talk about just now. So I'll add that to the calendar. All right, we go into the issues. So on that note, on the note of TC53 participation we simply need to see about getting the OpenJS Foundation like registered as a member of the TC53 committee. So maybe this is something, Miles, I can ask you for advice or help or something on. So what really would be the, are there any concerns on the, would there be any concern from the board for us to just like start participating here as delegates? I'm sorry, I was multi-tasking. Maybe just one more time. Okay, yeah, so the foundation is joined ECMA and we are listed as members of participants in TC39. And I'd sent an email out to Michael Dolan and to Robin about signing whatever we may need to sign to be able to participate in TC53. And I think just probably because they're very busy and aren't worried about nationed JavaScript technical committees, I haven't heard back from them, but I just wanna make sure that like, there's nothing to really be concerned about with regard to joining these kinds of groups from the board's perspective. My understanding is it is right in our bylaws that this is stuff we wanna do. So if you go to openjsf.org and you scroll down to the bottom and you look at openjs foundation bylaws and you grab four standards, you will not find anything. I thought I was there. No, nothing will happen if you do all those things. You know what it may have been in our mission statement, but like definitely one of the things that was discussed when we were putting things together was like being a center of gravity for the JavaScript ecosystem and engaging in things, including standards. So it is my impression that it should not at all be an issue. Okay. Well, then I'll just circle back on that thread and make sure that it's okay to go ahead and push on this a little bit because I wouldn't think that with some of our projects which are IoT related, that this would be a place that we should be participating more in. And Donovan Buck has volunteered to be a delegate on our behalf you know, in a 10 meetings and stuff like that remotely and otherwise. So, you know, will interest. Okay. Well, that's TC 53. And, oh yeah, and Peter Hottie and that team they would love to. They should speak, they should do a talk at the next interactive or whatever we call it. That's an aside. Sorry. Our next couple of issues are process related and I feel like we come back to these on a regular basis. Sundil, do you know, can you summarize where we're at with this? Okay. So, I guess like I opened another PR for adding governance to standard scope and that was merged. And after that, we're talking about 23, right? Yep. So, we are expecting someone to come and start or else we just give out word that we are actively accepting nominations for active members but I'm not sure how this is gonna happen but we are open, anybody opening a pull request for adding themselves as an active member just like what we did on CPC would be really great. Okay. So really what we need to do is just everybody on this call should open a pull request to add themselves as an active member of the group, like we did on the CPC. Yes. Okay. All right. Let's do it everybody. We can do it. All right. Should we leave this issue open or should we close it and open a new one that tells everybody what to do? Exactly. Yes, I would agree to it. Let's do that. Okay. All right. I'm gonna close and then it feels good to close. I like closing issues and it feels like work happened but now I'm gonna open a new one that says please I'll go and clean that up here in a second. Okay, cool. Go team. Next one was, yeah, onboarding. Go forth. Yes, sir. Okay. So this is also a long vending issue. I mean like, so we should list down all the roles and responsibilities of the representatives and things they should know, they should consider and for example, any projects or any standards that they have to focus on or have to collaborate between them and which have to be our end to be our those things. And those are the things I think like those are the things that might be required for any representative who's gonna represent us in any of the committee meetings. So I think that is the basic intention behind this issue. I mean, to have a starting point for anybody who wants to start as a representative or who wants to do some representative work here. And it's still open. Probably I can create a pull request with some of the knowledge that I have but it might not be complete. So once I create, we can discuss over it and then probably we can merge the PR or if anybody's interested can create a pull request. And I think we have discussed this for a longer time but I think we didn't do anything. I didn't do anything. Sorry for that, yeah. No, I mean, I think that's like we do kind of run into this problem. I think sometimes we're being a newer working group and kind of bootstrapping and trying to figure out kind of where our remit is and what we wanna do. We end up discussing things and which is good. We should discuss, but it's also like there's a balance between the discussion that we need to do to make sure that we're doing the right thing and the thing that we really wanna do. And also like the action of taking those steps to actually kind of move things forward whether they're the exact right thing or not. So, then that brings us to speaking of action, action. We want action. Number six, which is the standards related travel budget clarification. This is one we spent quite a while discussing last time. And I'm not sure if anyone has like the energy to summarize it, but I will try if nobody else wants to. Really, I think what is missing is that we need a... We need a like proposal to put forward or some data to share to the CPC related to how like approximately what our estimate would be in terms of travel spend on standard specific work. We talked about getting past data from JS Foundation attendees to these events in 2018. And 2019, but those people disclosed that for the most part they either joined the meetings remotely or they were able to get their employers to cover the expense. So in fact, the JS Foundation did not incur any standards travel expense in 2018 or 2019. So we don't have that past data. But if we were to proceed with this potential idea of sending someone physically, especially sending someone physically to like scribe or something of that sort, we would want to be able to provide to the folks managing the travel budget some estimate of what they plan to do. What they should expect. Miles, you weren't there for that conversation. I wonder if you have any thoughts or guidance for what you would like to see or what you would think makes sense to demonstrate to the CPC, to the board, et cetera, since those are hats that you also wear. I mean, depending on the way in which we think about it, like in court chartered to do this work, it doesn't necessarily require any sort of regular reporting to the CPC. At least like in my opinion, like with the way that we run things in note and just interrupt me if this is not useful. But like the technical steering committee charters groups such as the build working group or the release working group with owning a part of nodes infrastructure process or code base. And in lieu of that group that's been chartered, you know, making any mistakes, they own it. So there's no need for kind of like reporting or updates other than perhaps, you know, when necessary for like collaboration, but like they can be seen as kind of like separate autonomous groups. I don't know if that aligns with exactly what you had in mind. Like perhaps it would be useful to keep the CPC up to date on things, but like kind of my gut from how most of the CPC meetings have gone recently is that like those meetings are so busy with just trying to like make sure all the processes in place that it would be like a pretty massive derailment from what those meetings are focused on. I mean, that's a fair point. We don't want to like, you know, suddenly change the work of the CPC to also include accounting, for example. That would be pretty in the weeds. But I think at the same time I was thinking that from like a transparency standpoint or from a data, you know, sharing standpoint, it's kind of nice to say, you know, we think that it's going to be X many that will invest X many dollars and sending people to support these meetings. Because then at the end of you can go, oh, we did that or we didn't do that. And the other thing I was thinking was that like, and right, I think right now the other pieces, it's not, it's not clear to me if we have that mandate yet because we're not officially chartered by the CPC. We're just, we're more of like the working group kind of kind of like, I'm not sure how much formality we have, I guess. So to that, like I really think formalizing a governance structure and getting like kind of like officially chartered by the CPC to manage the work is like a good step in that direction. And kind of would, I don't know, probably work out with the CPC's requirements would be for this because the flip side also, and I recognize many of us in here participate in this calls as well. But like there's many other stakeholders there. Like we don't need to pre-optimize for things. If folks over on the CPC are happy to like say, hey, own this, we trust you to use the budget of the travel budget appropriately. We trust you to like manage all of this stuff and just go. Then like we don't really need to like too much process around it. But if we go and we kind of state, oh yeah, one of the things we'll be responsible for is like going in person, you know, maybe there will be some responsibility or feedback that they'll want about it. But I think perhaps the process of trying to charter and own this for the foundation will kind of float to the surface to things that we need to more formalize. So we need perhaps someone to champion slash drive. And then like sharing this governance and the governance that we have and engaging with the CPC so that we can kind of get that mandate. Yeah, I'd be happy to do it. I think we just need to flesh out the governance stock, which is most of the way there. And then make a charter and then present it to the committee as, you know, Hey, we'd like you to charter us to do this. Cool. Because I'm imagining the charter for this group will probably be not too unlike the charter for projects. I probably will not have bandwidth to start digging into that until the new year though. Yeah. So please don't take this as a cookie lick. If anyone wants to get started with it, please do so. That is such a great phrase. I like that. No, I think, I think that's probably true of a lot of the things we want to do here is like, this is, this is functionally our last meeting before the new year. So, you know, perhaps looking at it as. This is setting up shop for what we want to get done quickly. And then, and when we come back in 2020. So, um, cool. That is the last issue or on our agenda. Is there any other business or discussion that group wants to take today? Anything on your harder mind? Mike's kids because he's left to go pick up his kiddos. Joe's furnace because he's having furnace issues. Okay, well, I'm going to end the recording.