OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-08-19  ## Metadata - Author: [[OpenJS Foundation]] - Full Title: OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-08-19 - Category: #articles - Document Note: --- tags: [Assign relevant tags or keywords to the notee to facilitate organization and retrieval. Add a # before each tag. Tags cannot have special characters. Do not use the tag #articles] - #openjs - #governance - #ospo Author: OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council (various speakers: Chris, Robin, Ben, Jordan, Toby, et al.) Source: YouTube – OpenJS Foundation Reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4 date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} --- # Title: OpenJS CPC 2025-08-19 — Governance, CoC/GDPR, Project Progression & Communication ## Table of Contents: - [📝 Summary](#-summary) - [📖 Main Content](#-main-content) - [🗒️ Notes](#-notes) - [📖 References](#-references) - [🗣️ Paraphrase](#-paraphrase) - [📰 Newsletter](#-newsletter) - [✅ Action Items](#-action-items) - [🧪 Hypotheses](#-hypotheses) - [📊 Methodology](#-methodology) - [❓ Questions](#-questions) - [🔮 Future Research](#-future-research) - [💡 Implications](#-implications) - [🧠 Learning Styles Assessment](#-learning-styles-assessment) - [📊 Accessibility Assessment](#-accessibility-assessment) - [🌍 DEIB (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging) Assessment](#-deib-diversity-equity-inclusion-and-belonging-assessment) - [✅ Logical validity](#-logical-validity) - [🔍 DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🔍 SEO Evaluation](#-seo-evaluation) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ### References: Include a list of sources consulted and cited in the article. --- ## 📝 Summary: A routine OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council (CPC) meeting (2025-08-19) covered logistics for JS Conf hotel blocks ([00:49](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=49)), Code of Conduct (CoC) incident-handling and GDPR alignment following consultation with the Linux Foundation DPO ([03:29–04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=209)), project onboarding/audits to avoid duplicated efforts ([06:41–09:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=401)), multiple charter reviews (GeoDA approved; NativeScript needing voting/size clarifications and avoiding lifetime appointments) ([10:05–15:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=605)), and governance updates to project progression criteria—shifting from “supermajority” to standard CPC decision-making, while trimming scope creep ([16:58–23:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1018)). The group also discussed Contributor Covenant updates and proposed quarterly maintainer town halls ([28:28–29:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1708)). --- ## 📖 Main Content: - **Operational logistics & communications:** With board meeting cadence confirmed for September ([01:26–01:34](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=86)), the team debated whether to carve out live time for the board deck or circulate by email ([02:01–02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=121)). - **CoC/GDPR clarity:** After DPO consult, CPC affirmed that carefully sharing CoC incident information **within** OpenJS processes is expected and GDPR-compliant; withholding can itself be a CoC concern ([03:29–04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=209)). - **Onboarding & audits:** To prevent duplication, CPC aligns around Kate’s cross-project audit (IP agreements, incomplete merger onboarding), centralizing tracking and removing “working session” labels until her pass completes ([06:41–09:32](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=401)). - **Charters:** - **GeoDA:** Request for final CPC review though it’s been open a while ([10:05–11:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=605)). - **NativeScript:** Concerns: lifetime appointments, unclear vote-calling, and a rule requiring 5 members present even when TSC could be <5—blocking business. Action: call this out before approval ([12:41–15:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=761)). - **Governance (Project Progression to Impact):** Historic consensus to replace “supermajority” with CPC’s standard decision process. Scope creep from adding sub-bullets caused delay; proposal: merge minimal change now, handle broader charter harmonization later ([16:58–23:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1018)). - **Docs location & transparency:** Push to move any proprietary-tool documentation back into GitHub for openness ([23:18–24:51](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1398)). - **Contributor Covenant & town halls:** Finish CoC action items, align on v3, and start quarterly maintainer town halls for updates and two-way feedback ([28:28–29:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1708)). --- ### 🗒️ Notes - **[00:03](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=3) Kickoff & agenda triage** - Confirm JS Conf hotel block urgency; add overflow options ([00:49–01:13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=49)). - Board deck: limited time; consider email circulation ([02:01–02:35](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=121)). - **[03:29](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=209) CoC + GDPR** - DPO guidance: internal information-sharing in CoC workflows is **policy-aligned** and **not** a GDPR violation when done carefully; failure to share can be a CoC breach ([03:45–04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=225)). - Action: summarize and add to GitHub docs for clarity ([04:48–05:07](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=288)). - **[06:41](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=401) Onboarding & issue consolidation** - Remove duplicative labels; assign Kate; allow her audit (IP agreements, incomplete processes) to finish ([07:58–09:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=478)). - **[10:05](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=605) Project charters** - **GeoDA:** CPC members to review PR; timebox desired ([11:03–11:22](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=663)). - **NativeScript:** - “Lifetime appointments” flagged as governance risk; suggest re-certification cadence (e.g., annual affirmation) ([12:41–14:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=761)). - Voting rule requires ≥5 present but minimum TSC size not defined—projects could be deadlocked with 4; must fix before approval ([14:46–15:50](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=886)). - **[16:58](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1018) Governance PR: Impact stage** - History: CPC agreed ~1 year ago to align with standard decision process, not supermajority ([17:02–17:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1022)). - Scope creep from extra bullets (notice windows, etc.) risks months of delay; recommendation: merge minimal change now, open separate issues for broader governance cleanup ([19:50–23:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1190)). - **[23:18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1398) Docs in proprietary tools** - Principle: governance/docs belong in GitHub; avoid lock-in ([23:31–24:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1411)). - **[28:28](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1708) CoC v3 & Town halls** - Finish CoC updates, prepare quarterly maintainer town halls; bundle communications on policy changes and best practices ([28:28–29:44](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1708)). --- ## 📖 References: - **Primary:** OpenJS Foundation CPC Meeting (2025-08-19), YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4 - **Related (contextual):** Contributor Covenant v3 (mentioned), Linux Foundation DPO consultation (summarized in meeting). --- ## 🗣️ Paraphrase: 1) **GDPR & CoC Sharing (≈[03:45–04:33](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=225))** *Original idea:* Sharing CoC incident details within OpenJS processes is expected and compliant; withholding can itself breach CoC. *Paraphrase:* When handling incidents, OpenJS projects are allowed—and in fact expected—to pass relevant information through official channels. Doing so, with care, fits our privacy commitments. Avoiding necessary sharing may violate the CoC more than sharing does. 2) **Project Progression Criteria (≈[16:58–23:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4&t=1018))* - Summary: To learn more about critical open source JavaScript projects like Appium, Dojo, jQuery, Node.js, and webpack, and 27 more checkout The OpenJS Foundation: https://openjsf.org/ - URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhfEIjd4NM4 Cool. Um, all right. So, getting things started. Uh, welcome everyone to another episode of the OpenJS Foundation's Cross Project Council meeting. Uh, today is, uh, August 19th, 2025. Thanks everybody for joining. Um, weird. I just got signed out here. Okay, now I'm back in. Sorry. Um, let's see. Uh, do we have any announcements? Is that where we start? Any announcements, folks? >> Um, yeah. I think we've mentioned JS Comp. You know, the I think we've mentioned in the past month the hotel block was selling out. Uh, good good to remind folks because it's a reminder for me, too. >> It looks like that last night is sold. Come to me. But otherwise, um, we're adding some other hotel options. But yeah, y'all need to grab your space and join us and be a blast. >> Yeah, that's a good reminder for me, too. I've got to get my hotel. >> There you go. >> Cool. Um any uh board meeting uh updates? We have a board meeting. I guess we don't have one until September. Is that right? >> Correct. >> Okay. Um so no updates. Uh oh, did we we have not looked at the deck yet, have we? >> Dang it. >> Hence my comment under the agenda with the question mark. Uh where is that? Oh yes, board deck. I see that. Um >> not enough not enough hours in the day, but >> I know I know. >> Um interesting. Uh I don't know what to do. Should we should we uh go through that today? Try to like hustle through some of the important stuff in the agenda and then save a good 25 minutes or something for the board deck. Does anyone have any thoughts? >> You've got a very packed agenda, so I don't know. Um, >> maybe we should send the board deck around to the email or something. Private email. I don't know. All right. If anybody has any thoughts about that, uh, speak up or send them over, drop it in chat, what have you. Uh, otherwise, I will just get going. Um, all right. Any uh updates from staff on any of these items? Waiting on legal info. There's a few things here. Drop it into the chat for folks. um clarify what information is collected about individuals part of COC incident handling which is um also on the agenda as well as the COC recordkeeping also on the agenda possible GDPR conflict summary on the agenda a code of conduct information sharing between the project and foundation also on the agenda um and then we also >> want to run >> I can um give a quick summary we met with our data a protection officer for the Linux Foundation. Ben and I did um center all of the issues beforehand that were related. Um and essentially to summarize and I'll put this in the issues um we have a defined policy um most organizations do have a defined policy around this particularly in open source and the foundations um and um allowing the process to do to move forward within one organization like OpenJS and all of its member projects falls under that policy that is documented um and allowing it to move forward is is the right thing to do and to share information and not sharing information could actually be a code of conduct violation as opposed to a privacy uh incident. So sharing information uh with the utmost care and discernment um is um expected as part of our policy and not a violation of GDPR. Okay. Interesting. >> Do we think we need to clarify anything anywhere or um >> I'll summarize it and put it in the all of the issues? >> Okay, that would be great. Yeah, that would be great. >> Um >> yeah, I think um Robin, some of that information that we got from our council, I think we can add to some of our uh documentation GitHub. Yeah. >> Great. Um, okay. Thank you. Um, so that's waiting on legal info. Uh, waiting on uh staff update is the resources GitHub uh GitHub's dev connect program. I don't know if there's any update on that or anything. >> Um, other than feedback was given to the GitHub team via Abby. >> Okay. >> I haven't heard back since. So, >> okay, great. So, we're just kind of waiting to hear back from them uh on this one then. >> Mhm. >> Okay. All right. Great. Um, cool. Then I will jump into the uh uh agenda here. I move this one up to the top because uh I think we did this last working session and uh I don't know if this is uh if there's anything uh I mean I guess Chris uh De Alamita you have a comment here from two weeks ago and I'm not sure if we got >> which I don't >> which one >> oh sorry uh 1374 this is the uh migrate project status back here drop it in the chat um >> oh this was the thing we were working on the last working session. >> Yeah. Yeah. And I just wonder so we moved everything and then Okay, so where we ended up with this and we didn't update this comment or um wait a minute. Okay, sorry. This is from two weeks ago. >> The working session was last week. Okay, so we didn't post in here. Basically, we did the transfer and then we went through a couple of the issues and where we sort of ended up was that Kate um was going through a process of basically kind of what the with quite a bit of overlap on what our goal was with these which was to hey we have these old checklists of for onboarding projects and who you know some of them are like 5 years old plus and like we don't know what the state is. it may be different today than it was even then and who knows what's going on. And so um I think the what we had discussed was to just let Kate go through the process that she was already going through with I I'm not sure what that effort is called or whatever. Um I don't know if it's auditing or etc. Um, >> but we were just going to let that play out and then revisit once that was all done. And I don't know what that looks like in terms of revisiting, you know, whether it's taking the findings that she has and updating those issues or whatever, but um it just sounded like we were we didn't want to like duplicate efforts and just let her do her job, which was >> Yeah. Does that sound familiar to I see Fed's nodding so I assume. >> And essentially Yeah. and she's not doing like holistically project by project. We may take an issues that's very important to make sure like all of our IP agreements are documented and filed and just so taking really important things and working across all um but yeah she's got an entire spreadsheet tracking a number of open um we call it the onboarding issues and some of the projects that joined the foundation as part of the merger just never quite completed all the process processes. So >> yeah. So maybe we want to remove the labels from this issue. >> Uh let's see. So >> unless we do want to talk about this, you know, every meeting. >> No, I don't think so. And I don't know if it really needs to be a working session anymore either. But I don't because I feel like Kate's kind of got two things that were uh they're related, but the auditing and then also uh us figuring out how to communicate with the um the maintainers this batch of things which I think we have another issue for. Um but yeah, I guess it makes sense to take those labels off for now. And maybe I'll even assign Kate That make sense? >> Yep. >> Okay. All right. Great. So now at least it's on someone's sort of we could probably rename the issue now to something more accurate. Um since everything's moved and now the goal is sort of shifted slightly. But um we don't have to hold this up to >> Yeah, if you wouldn't mind Chris just dropping a little summary in there and then you can update the title if you want. That would be awesome. Sure. >> Sure. Thank you. I'm volunteering you. Um, cool. All right. So, moving on. Uh, we have a couple of, uh, project charters here. Uh, the Geoda one. Uh, this is, uh, issue 1496. Uh, where's my window? And, uh, this was open June 25th. Uh charter was approved by Geodop project TSC last month. Uh looks like two weeks ago, Ben, you shared the PR specifically. Uh I'm not seeing any further comments on this. So, I guess maybe the the the ask is for folks to just go through and and review the uh the charter. Yeah, for that one. Um and then let me pull up the other one. >> Can we give a time box on that? It has been open for quite some time. >> It's been open for quite some time, but I think that that it's really only been available for uh uh not as long of a time, a month. But I agree let's let's get this done. Uh similarly uh the native script charter uh where are we on this one? This is issue 1467. Drop it in the chat here. Um Toby commented last there's some comments from last week. Uh there's no objections. Uh so uh Jordan, you had a comment about lifetime appointment does not allow lifetime appointments. >> Yeah, the uh from what I can recall cuz I don't I don't have it pulled up right now. The um there was a few iterations of basically where they um it wasn't clear how you could call a vote. It wasn't coherent how you could call a vote. And I think they fixed that. But then um it seems seems like at any point having someone the ability to appoint someone like to the Supreme Court essentially that that we know why that is uh why not having any recourse for that sucks. And if anybody who's on the TSC, if this gets approved, anyone who's on the TSC now can stay on it forever and they can't be like they could argue that they can't be retroactively uh impo uh that they can't retroactively have a a time limit imposed on them. Now, hopefully no one would, but it seems like a tweak that could be made that would prevent that from ever being a problem. I um yeah, I mean I think it's a fair point. I would just note that I think that this isn't uncommon for projects to not have like a a time limit enshrined. Um there are, you know, there is stuff in there about that they can be removed like by consensus. >> That's true. >> And uh that they can be reconsidered if a member misses two or more monthly meetings. So it's not like they can't be removed. Oh want to remove them. >> I don't care if there's no time limit, right? Like it's fine if they don't want an implicit time limit, but like having yearly reertification or something. It's just like like the default should be that they are removed just like node does it this way for moderation at least. Um and that way but but it's insanely easy to stay. You just say, "Yep, I'm still here." and nobody says but you suck like and then you continue, right? Um it's it's just sort of a natural checking like it's like a simple check and balance thing built in there that adds virtually no overhead. Um it could be every 5 years, I don't know, but like yearly seems clean. Um that's like I I'm not trying to insist on the mechanism. It just like seems some like something. Go ahead Chris, you can jump in. Oh, no. I mean, I didn't mean to interrupt. Um, yeah. No, I think your point's fair. I don't know that, you know, we would want to block that. >> Yeah. I'm not blocking on it and and I I'm was very careful in my choice of words to say like you can proceed without this, but you probably shouldn't. Um, which is my opinion, but like, >> you know, um, yeah. >> Yeah. Um, I do actually see a problem that I think is more significant that we might want to block out. And I'm sorry, I know this has been open for a while and it has multiple approvals, possibly including my own, but I didn't notice this until now. Um, the there's a couple of places where um it mentions that consensus requires at least five TSC members to be present to approve a new member. And same thing with removing um a member. Um and while there's no um specification on the maximum size of the TSC, there's I I don't believe there's anything in here about the minimum size of the TSC. So if you have a TSC of four members, you can't actually do business according to this charter. >> Okay, that's important. If you're going to say you have a five member minimum requirement for these things, then you need to specify what's the minimum size of the TSC because if your minimum size is five, that's not good enough. You need to either reduce that minimum or you know what I mean, something's got to give there. Uh, and this seems like something that needs to be fixed before we can approve this. >> I think it's a good point. If you want to call that out uh in there, that would be great. and then we can leave this on the agenda and and hopefully come back uh in two weeks. >> Okay. >> Yeah. Okay. Thought I thought that one would be done, but uh >> carries on. >> Sorry, I almost didn't didn't really want to say anything, but like once I noticed it, I can't not. >> Yeah, that's an important one, I think. So, uh very good. All right. Uh here's a fun one. uh 1584 uh update decision-m criterion for impact stage graduation. Um Christie, you want to uh you open this one. This poll request. >> Yeah, let's talk let's talk about this one um hopefully briefly. Um so for just some background um this came up when Express was um trying to go to impact stage. Um, and there was some like the project progression as you can see in the PR. It would be helpful to pull up the PR. Um, if anybody wants to screen share. Um, so the project progression criterion for or one of them is to receive a supermajority vote from the CPC. Um and we had dis we didn't want to change this for express because you know we we don't want any impropriy in terms of oh we're we're we want to change the process because we're trying to do something but it was sort of clear um in our discussions in the CPC that like this was kind of not in keeping with the general decision-making process that we wanted to follow and we agreed to make this change um to you know follow the regular decision-making process of the CPC rather than this um you know supermajority thing that was in here. So we all agreed to do that but um nobody created a PR to actually update the language in here. So that's what I did. Um now uh the plot has thickened a little bit and I I think it's at least partially um due to I included these uh sub bullet points here. Um, unfortunately Toby's not here, but um, I think largely in part of these sub bullets that I just included for um, consistency with sort of similar things in um, the CPC charter um that like you know create an issue and it's open for 14 days. Um, but this seemed to like open a bit of a can of worms and then Toby wanted to um kind of shore up some of the governance documentation and so he created this other PR and it's closed now but if you look in that there was a bunch of back and forth between me and Toby on well if we're referencing this like this isn't quite accurate or this doesn't work for these situations and I I my take on this was that like you know Sure, like if we need to do some cleanup and some reorganization, I think that's a worthwhile thing to do. Um, but like the extent of the changes would mean that this would take us weeks, months to resolve all these different things and get input from people and iterate. And again, those are fine things to do, but we agreed to make this change nearly a year ago now. And I think it's important that we would get the criterion updated for project progression. Um, and then move on to more extensive sort of governance changes, charter changes. Again, that stuff, some of that stuff needs to go through the board. Um, and if it's important stuff that we need to address, that's fine. I just felt like we shouldn't hold up the change that's already been held up almost a year to the project progression criteria. Uh, so, um, never really circled back on this with Toby. I had that last comment that you see there about, hey, maybe it's better to remove these two sub bullet points. Does that help resolve the concerns about the, you know, having different documents and referring to different stuff and too much overlap or duplication or inconsistency. Um, and Toby didn't respond. Um, so I don't know. So for I I it would be great to land at least the first bullet point that honestly the two second bullet points were really in my mind nice to haves. I don't think that like a project going to impact stage is going to happen accidentally and like you know with a PR open for 24 hours and suddenly they're approved and like you know without the right oversight and consensus from the CPC. So, I'm, you know, in the interest of just like, hey, let's make let's update this because we agreed to update this and so the next project that moves to Impact doesn't have to follow this archaic process. Um, I propose that we just merge that first bullet point. I can update that. Um, anyway, I've said a lot of things. What do folks think? Just generally speaking, I I like the idea of removing the two. And then if uh and we can merge this, like you said, it's been a while. And then maybe if we can capture some of the other discussion points in an issue, we can kind of go from there. I'm not I don't know what what you think of that. if you think that the other points are worth trying to address because I'm not sure exactly what Toby had in that other governance PR and and and and such. So, y'all can hear me, right? Okay. >> Oh, sorry. I'm I'm on mute. >> Oh, there you go. the in the other PR it it did among other things um like in the charter there's some content about how uh charters are approved for example and it talks about the 14 days and so Toby had updated it to say four charter changes and project movement and but like it just it it spiraled it created these other well this doesn't really apply to project progression and Um, like there was just there's a whole bunch of loose ends that start needed to be getting tied up. Um, and and you know, again, I'm not opposed to doing those things, but like it's it's it's like scope creep, right? It's a lot more stuff that we have to figure out. Um, and all the while we're blocking changing our process, which again we agreed to change nearly a year ago. So I think that this the first bullet point change in the original PR that just changes the language from superma majority vote to obtaining approve it's very general obtain approval following the decision-m process and then we remove those two sub bullet points about you know that are more um you know granular process sort of things and and if we want to add that into the mix we can follow up later with, you know, maybe more in line with the um changes that Toby was proposing. >> Okay. >> So, if that sounds reasonable to folks, >> it does. >> I can go ahead and push up that change and then um if uh you know, I notice I think that the CPC was tagged for review, but nobody else ever chimed in. Um, so if people could take a look um once I push that up um and maybe give your thumbs up or thumbs down um that would be awesome. >> Sounds good. All right. Excellent. Thank you, Chris. Um I will just keep sharing here. Uh so uh we are here. I think um Robin uh you were kind of talking about this sort of stuff, right? So, we we can kind of skip over that. Um, I remember talking about this and this one not being exactly clear what the ask is here. So, I don't know if this needs to be on the agenda or what is going on with this one. Does anybody know? Yeah, I think uh there was some documentation that was locked in a proprietary tool and I said we don't do that documentation on GitHub. >> So I think they were sorting that out trying to unravel that. So >> okay. Do you think this needs the cross project >> CPC? No, I don't I don't believe so. >> All right. Great. Uh what is this one? So part of uh Kate's work perhaps to audit and and uh reach out to folks. Yeah. Okay. Um I think this is actually part of the other one too uh that you had discussed, Robin. Right. Um, I don't know where we are with this one. >> I actually started drafting something the other day. So, why don't I I create a draft. That's how we tend to sort of lightweight when we open these collab spaces. So, I will do that and then we've had some hands raise who want to join and then >> we will throw some mud on the wall on scheduling and see where we land. But I think yeah >> perfect >> take that action. >> Uh I remember we kind of discussed this but I don't know where we landed. This is the AI assisted development. Oh, the working session. Uh, yeah. I'm not sure uh if there's action items on this or what next steps are or anything like that, but um we can leave it for now if we want and uh touch base next time unless anybody has anything they want to do on that one. I'm trying to we got 12 minutes so uh just trying to plow through this. Uh, so this I think is still just sort of waiting on Cladio. >> They're in full execution mode. So I don't know if they need CPC feedback, but hopefully they'll share best practices, but yeah, I don't see it as something that >> Okay. >> CPC needs. Yeah. >> Yeah. Uh this we kind of just need to go through um I think as we kind of update on some of these uh code of conduct remaining action items. This one we've talked about uh Kate's working on auditing and uh prepping for maintainer updates. Uh I think this is also part of the code of conduct remaining work that still needs to happen. be quiet on workings. Uh, anything else on any of these things that we need to talk about any of these remaining agenda items? I don't know if there is uh if not, you know, the last question usually to raise is um what do we want to work on next week for the working session? I feel like it might not be bad to dig into the code of conduct stuff and really try to wrap all of that up. Uh, you know, updating to the new contributor covenant uh thing. Um although do we have kind of open questions on that still that we're looking to work through? >> No. I and I know in our um security meeting yesterday, we talked about doing like a quarterly town hall to help share information to maintainers. We do that now on an ad hoc basis when we have new programs, but um if we start implementing quarterly, I think it would be nice to have as much stuff buttoned up as possible that we can push out. >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And that would be a great opportunity to to um to push, you know, batch up things to push out and then also make folks aware of um other ways that that that they may get these sort of updates via email or >> Okay. Um yeah. So, do we want to do COC stuff next week? Try to really kind of button any of the remaining action items on that up. >> Yeah. Especially I think version three is coming out shortly, right Joe? So that would be good. >> Yeah. I mean I think it's already officially out and they're going to do a a town hall or something soon. Um >> so uh Okay, good. Good. Uh co see uh last remaining action items and such. Okay. Uh great. anything else with our remaining eight or nine minutes that we want to talk about? If not, then I guess we'll call it a wrap. Uh, thanks everybody. I appreciate y'all being on and helping get the work done. >> Great. Thanks everyone. >> Thanks. >> Bye. >> Stop sharing., OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-08-19, OpenJS Foundation, 01k344tykwxa8jjqjr75h4pry4.