OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-11-11  ## Metadata - Author: [[YouTube]] - Full Title: OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-11-11 - Category: #articles - Document Tags: [[video-notes]] [[youtube]] - Summary: OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-11-11 - URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw We are live. Okay. Wonderful. Hello everybody and welcome to the CPC call. Today is >> um the 11th of November 2025. Um let's get started. If you haven't added your names uh to the minutes already, uh please do so. um trying to paste them in the Zoom chat if they're not already. They It looks like they are. Yes. Wonderful. Thank you, Ben. Um do we have any announcements for uh today? >> I think I can make an announcement. Kate, I've been in meetings. Don't know if you sent an email yet. >> Yeah, I posted it in the issue. >> Oh, awesome. Okay. Well, congratulations. We have our new voting reps for the CPC. Uh Jordan Harband will be the atlarge and our two regular are Chris Dale Ma and Ethan Arowwood. So whoop whoop. Congrats. >> Very cool. >> Yeah. >> Congrats to uh one of the nominees. >> Yeah. Oh, someone has some fancy uh Zoom action going on here. >> All right. Um, yeah, I think Ethan is a is a first timer indeed. Yeah, it's great to have uh new faces. >> Yeah, I didn't mean to leave anybody out. Congratulations, Jordan and Chris as well. Uh I think Chris, aren't you a repeat? I just wanted to, you know, say it's nice to see always. So >> yeah, as I mentioned uh to Robin, I I look forward to another year of absolutely no voting because we resolve everything cons successfully by consensus. That's very funny actually. I I love um well anyway I don't want to go on the whole discussion about this but I think it's a it's a that's a great framing and this is like this is a this is perfect. Thank you Chris. Um all right. Um any other announcement? No. All right, cool. Let's get into what's next on the agenda. We will have a private session to discuss travel fund request at the end of this call. Um I think there's one request. Uh do we have board meeting updates? We did have a meeting um sort of like a work session of the board uh last week. Um I'm not sure that there's anything that we uh that is uh ready or that is worth um sharing in this setting. Is there? >> No, but just generally brainstorming different ways to expand our partnership program um essentially and you know again just further uh fundraising strategies for the foundation. So, got some works in progress and once we sort of narrow them down, we'll definitely bring them to the CPC for feedback before we move forward with anything. >> Very cool. Okay. Um, and then we should move to staff updates. I didn't look at those in advance, but I see nothing waiting on board. Um, there's the loop back uh IP policy u thing that is still in the air. Um, there was a there's an open issue to document. Oh, and you've actually um this this was issue 1677 and Ben, you've tied it to issue 1243 that we should be discussing later on. Um I I I'm I'm assuming they're in um hopefully they're in um in the agenda. At least one of them is. >> Um yeah. Uh I can add the So we do have one tagged waiting on staff update. It's not tagged for the agenda, but I I I assume >> No, sure. >> Because it's tagged. >> Yeah. >> But is the other one in the agenda? I just I just want to make sure that we don't end up missing both as a two3. I don't see it. It's an old one that I tagged. >> Oh. So, >> let me Would it be helpful just for me to >> just do it now? >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Um, okay. So, there was an issue. It's 1677 and this was around um trying to clarify how the the elections are run um because it's um the information is scattered in different documents and it's a little confusing. And so I started going down this path and I got to the point of creating a PR and I realized I was actually introducing some things that are pretty big changes. So I wanted to kind of discuss them before I actually filed a PR. So I think there's two two primary suggestions I think that I would make. The first is around how we handle impact voting uh sorry how we handle impact voting representatives and the other which was discussed I think over a year ago is around combining um non-impact and um regular voting members like we have all these tiers and it's very confusing. So anyway let's let's talk about each of these separately. So the first suggestion that I had again I haven't talked to any of you about this so you know take that with a grain of salt is that um I was proposing that impact voting representatives be appointed rather than elected. This is analogous to how platinum board members operate. Um I talked about >> how it works today though >> practically >> they're nominated and ratified essentially. Well, okay. The difference is that we say they need to do it every year. >> And so the difference here is that once an impact voting member is appointed, um they serve until they decide to not serve anymore. They retire. Um the project elects someone else, which they can do at any time. Um or they're removed for some reason, which hopefully never happens, right? Um, and then I also detailed out how ratification works because that's very ambiguous in our documentation. But the the more important thing is what do folks think about that the the change to how impact voting members are um appointed and selected and the cadence that that happens. It may just be a nice reminder for the project to say, "Hey, does anyone else want to turn by making it yearly?" >> So, it is yearly now, >> right? >> Um, what practically happens now and and this might be a separate problem that's not solved by what I'm proposing is these very rarely change. Um the the times when they do change is usually when someone leaves a project and we need to have someone appointed new. Um but it's very rare that the impact um representatives are adjusted. And many of the impact projects also don't really have a lot of folks who would be cycling in. Right? There's a couple single maintainer ones or ones that have one or two. So um we can keep it yearly. Um but practically speaking it doesn't change yearly. And when I was writing this, I fully acknowledge that like it is nice to have a point of time in the year where we reconnect with folks and try to reconnect with the projects, but this might not be the right one to do that. Like I would if if that's really important, I would probably suggest we schedule projects for like a once-yearly presentation to the CPC on status or something like that. Um but not try to use the election as a way of trying to um re-engage with folks. >> Um >> oh, you can go first if you want. >> Okay, I beat you by just a bit. Um, I have been thinking about we've kind of circled on this like a few times in the past of like how do we connect with people and I I really I feel like well clearly the election doesn't seem to do it right. So that's like, you know, um not it. But I feel like we need to do something because even like some Slack conversations recently, I I think we've found there's been, you know, for lack of a better word, misconnections uh between different projects that are doing some similar stuff, and it would be really nice to get more, you know, involvement, at least knowing some of the other folks across the project. Have we done any Yeah, maybe that. I don't know. Have we done what like what other reach out have we done to see what the folks who don't show up to this kind of stuff would like to see? Cuz maybe that would then answer whether or not we need, you know, something in this particular change, right? Like I know the you know your goal here is is a little bit more engagement but like maybe they just don't really other folks don't really care about this. Maybe they don't know you know I don't know like this is where I'm I'm I'm kind of getting >> that's insightful. We do often talk to the maintainers but it's pushing out information. The one time time we did we're very thoughtful about pulling information was when Jory and I did a standards road show with the projects. But I do love the idea of pulling information on CPC or kind of sharing. >> Yeah. It would just be I I would really like to know like what are we missing that is why folks are not more active in maybe this group or one of the other you know foundation ones cuz like even reaching out you know on specific issues like people are engaged. they kind of want, you know, more like these maintainers are not, you know, sitting around barely keeping their product alive. Like these are some of the people who are most engaged in their projects and yet I think we still miss out on their engagement here. And maybe it doesn't need to be here every week, but like even once a year, it would be nice to have like a introduce yourself and what you work on. I don't know. Like I know, you know, I show up for stuff, but like would that even be, you know, something people would care about? Um I don't know like we need but it definitely feels like we need some thought to that engagement story so that we can figure out like what is the best way to get these impact projects members more you know of what they need >> Chris >> yeah um no totally agree with Wes's comments um and I don't know you know to to Ben's original comment about you I doesn't think that the voting season is the time to try and get projects to re-engage. I don't know. I I don't know that I have a great idea uh to improve that outcome, but um I might feel like I've mentioned this before. Um it doesn't sit right with me that the voting members um so many of them are absent. Um about half of our voting members uh are never here. um and to have the you know what is effectively the the governing body of the CPC be absentee um you know half of them pretty much always a little bit more than that um there there's a few more that are are rarely here um so you know I don't know what the solution is there I don't think that they can effectively represent the interests of uh the foundation's members if they aren't regularly attending these meetings. Um that being said, uh I'm glad that we don't have we have we have very little slashno that ever is called for a vote and you know we we operate by consensus and that includes all of the members of the um cross project council uh which I think is the healthy way to do things. Um, so I don't know. I I I I we're not going to solve that today or or or probably this year, but I mean, I do think we maybe should put some conditions around whether you're an active member. Um, you know, people that are not active regular members don't stay regular members. We we we try and purge the list of inactive folks. And it's not a punishment. It's just trying to keep things um, you know, accurate and organized. Um, so I would like to see maybe something that um, you know, if for for folks that are not engaged, that's fine. You don't have to be engaged uh, for you know, to the same degree that that other folks are. Um, but then you probably shouldn't have voting rights because when it comes to we now we're going to vote on something and you've been completely out of the loop, you don't have the context. Um, you know, that doesn't that that doesn't seem like good governance to me. Yeah, I think it's a fair point uh to I think both of those points were like really thoughtful about this thing that we've been sort of like uh running around for a while. Um my inclination here is sort of like this initially the same as sort of a number of folks express which is h we want these contact points. Um, but I also feel like hearing Wes and and Chris and and um and others that um maybe we should like not try to rely on things that are not designed to create that connection to maintain that connection and try to actually address the problem in a more efficient way. Um, and sort of like rip the band-aid off. Um, so I don't know. What do people feel? >> I was following you until you said rip the band-aid off. What do you mean by that? >> Because maybe I maybe I screwed up like an English uh expression because it happens to me on a regular basis. I meant I meant to say uh yeah I uh I I like the the Europeans on the call being like not laughing about me or like the sorry the non-native English speakers. Oh my god, I am digging my own hole. Uh um I hope I use that one correctly. Uh anyway, um no, what I wanted to say was I I think we should just go ahead with what Ben is suggesting we do, which is like fix a problem that would make things easier from an operational perspective um and not try to rely on this particular sort of like um um connection point to to to a degree as kind of what I'm hearing is kind of like as an excuse not to actually um um tackle the problem really. Um, and I hope that like this is, you know, this is uh helps uh uh regardless which I think we all agree doesn't. >> Yeah, I I'm in agreement. >> Um I I do hear the argument of like trying to bring new people um and you know creating occasions for that. Um um but I also don't I mean like it hasn't been the case that this has been used that has been successfully uh used to bring new people, right? >> Yeah. I thought a thought I'm having is I think you know we we try to get like leadership involved in the voting uh representation and I I wonder if we should maybe flip that and and just try to engage the projects and ask them to identify someone even a you know a less um you know uh less leadership role that can commit to you know not every CPC meeting but uh you know fairly regular and then you know we could use that as an opportunity to kind of um you know get them involved in our work and just have them involved and and help them you know thinking if they're uh I I hate the term junior dev but uh you know uh we could help them grow too it could be a mutually beneficial situation and then when they do have to vote you know they're they have the context but they can go back to their project leadership to really get more guidance on how you know as a project they should vote that kind of stuff. Ben Sorry, I was adding Ethan to the uh present list. Hey, Ethan. Yeah, I think um >> congrats Ethan. >> Yeah, congrats Ethan. >> Thank Thank you all. I heard there was cake. I assume I'll get mine in the mail. >> Yeah, exactly. >> Exactly. That's how it works. >> Thank you. >> I I agree with what everyone is saying. Um, I think when when Toby mentioned like ripping the band-aid off, the first thing that popped in my head is like if I was starting from scratch here and didn't have um any of this sort of existing work here, like would I just have voting members and people from the projects can um can decide if they want to be a voting member? People who are regular members can become voting members. We just have like one tier. Um, and um, the most important thing there is really like attendance and participation. And we do do this when we're we do ask this question when we're looking for folks for the board is the last question is always like, will you be able to make the board meetings? Because if you can't make the board meetings, you're not going to be a very good board member. And so we could we could kind of integrate that a little bit into the um the requirements. There is a downside there which is like I think having a um the impact projects have voting representation. the intent the intent behind that I think is important. So there's a trade-off there. But I just wanted to share that one thought that came to my head when when Toby mentioned that. >> Yeah, we have had >> we've had discussion over the the last several years. I'm really a strong advocate on allowing more voting members um from the projects. Um I do know that we tier our programs just from a resource perspective between impact and the others. Um but from folks who are really um I think you maybe interested in governance maybe not every you know project developer is actually interested in the governance aspect. So anyhow it might align more in a better way >> and so maybe in in um in terms of doing incremental change like what I would propose here is that we change the um impact uh to be by appointment. So, there isn't an election for that. And I want to hear folks comments. We combine the non-impact and um regular voting tiers to just be like non-impact voting members or something like that. I think had that on that simplifying issue about just all voting members, which I really like >> because we're we've always been confused and we've had the discussion there really is no difference. Um, and I really still would like to expand the number as well. >> I'm I'm kind of with Robin on the ladder, especially with the collab spaces being like in there's a lot of collab spaces that are doing really good work. Um, and the whole collab space was kind of originally designed as sort of a different way to have projects. Um, and so I'm not suggesting every collab space is a um, you know, impact collab space to stretch the metaphor. Um, so but I think it would be good to also have like some representation from that um, realm. I'm not sure how to do that in a way that doesn't add a whole bunch of additional complexity that seeing Ben is just going like, "Oh my god, shut up." >> We'll have five different spread across five different repos that explain how to do the election for the working groups. Um, >> and then we need a get out the vote campaign because sometimes we do have to chase you all to vote. Well, I think we can we can handle that separately and and I do think you know the the working groups are doing really really good work and um I don't you know there are some folks on this call who participate in in those working groups which is great but not everyone does. So like in in this in the spirit of communication like having those working groups share more of their work with the CPC or coming into a CPC call to say hey like here's some of the cool stuff we're working on is a is a is a grand idea. So, could we maybe uh suggest expanding like I I I would definitely go behind something that expanded the voting members. Uh like like essentially combine the two different categories of whatever those were and that we always struggle to figure out what they are. Um and and then like include like add like include um collab spaces in there even if it doesn't change anything and people can just show up anyway. Uh just like materially state it is um I think would be good. >> Yeah. and then maybe expand that number. >> Um cuz I don't know right now there's like four seats and maybe move it to six or something like this or like five or something that's reasonable. >> You know, for the past for the past two years, you know, we've you've been using that form to collect responses and I think for I think it's for regular maybe there's always been more folks um uh who are interested than we have seats. So we could look at at the past two years and just see how many folks are interested and you know use that as a guideline for how many seats there there should be. >> Yeah. Seems like the last election we would we would have four voting members if we didn't have the distinction between the two categories and now we have three voting members from that uh recent election as opposed to four. >> Yeah, I think that would be good. Um I I do want to say that um some of the impact projects um get a little bit angsty um when they feel like the balance of votes uh would suddenly be like broadly in favor of smaller projects. um which I understand and believe we need to be respectful of because these were part of like there were historical reasons um in the merger for this to be um organized that way. And so I think um finding ground where uh those numbers are um you know not sort of like tipping the equilibrium too brutally um would make it easier to get this through. Ethan, >> uh, the only, um, the thing that comes to mind for me for this is even though we have not historically seen a lot of like turnover with these voting members and projects, is there any concern from the standpoint of like if we give people sort of like indefinite terms or something, is there a good process for like new people to get involved um and take over or take someone's place or join. And like I know we all can hope that we'll all act, you know, great every time, but like I just don't want this to accidentally sort of allow someone to snag that, you know, hold on to that seat indefinitely and then never give it up. >> So I think >> Ben, you might Oh, sorry. You were gonna answer this. I think the idea with impact projects, the the idea with impact projects has always been that those projects have some process that decides who their voting representative is. They basically just tell the CPC who that is. So if any of those impact projects, you know, want to have a term limit or do elections or do any of those things are more than welcome to do that. Um for this like new combined tier of non-impact and um regular, that's still going to be a yearly election. So those those won't be appointed. Yeah. >> So good clarification. >> Yeah. And if you know none of this is like charter CBC charter based. It's just like CBC policies. And so if we end up like uh well >> I think there are changes here. >> Yeah. >> Oh well. How fun was this? >> Um I've already I've already got this all done. I just need to do the PR. >> Oh so there are some charter changes. That's interesting. Yeah. >> Okay. But never mind what I was going to say. Well, I'm looking forward to look at that to looking at that PR. That's for sure. >> Yeah. >> You know, I was thinking about the thing I was saying before, too, about getting new folks in. I mean, maybe part of the guidance for impact projects could be a suggestion that they have, you know, someone who's more experienced and someone who's less experienced and even consider it uh some level of mentoring there as well. >> Wes, >> yeah, we we discussed this a little bit. um for express I think uh you know rotating intentionally rotating people um you know I think there's value there but you have to have enough people signed on for that uh to make that happen and for us we didn't uh at the time I mean you know I think and the folks who would have signed on for are already, you know, actively engaged. So, it's not super different from just being somebody who shows up. Um, and I'm not sure there's many projects that are in a state to do that effectively. Um, so I think we would have to probably, you know, sort out some other things in order to get most of the, you know, impact projects into a state where we're we're incentivizing that or like able to push it because again, I just don't think like I think no.js is, you know, we weren't. Uh, who else is like, right? Like that's like who's going to what what other projects have enough people on their bench, you know, to to have a rotating, you know, cast. It's like I don't I just don't think there's enough projects in that state. >> Yeah. I I do want to add something that both of like the last comments made me think about and we chatted about in the working session last week. Um is we should do more sort of like culture transmission with projects and sort of be more intentional about this and uh rely less on sort of like touch points or like you know governance rules or things like this for that to happen. And so I really like this idea of like um you know for example when a new project comes in the like a new project when they're on boarded um like they should come for a whole CPC session and we should like go through their charter together and explain why that you know why we have a charter and what it's used stuff like that and sort of like figure out during that session all right like who's gonna who's going to come in the next CPC call things like this. So, I think that would be probably a lot more effective than um trying to add rules and stuff. >> Okay. >> Is there anything else on Oh, sorry. Please. >> I was say I think that the steps for me are are very clear. Um I added notes to the issue. Um and yeah, expect a PR in the not too distant future. Very cool. All right. Um, it's like nearly the we we haven't gotten to the main part of the agenda yet. Um, but I think this was a good conversation. Um, waiting on websites updates. I think there was just one thing and I think you did it and that was adding feature complete and archival things to the website. Um, am I right, Ben? >> Yeah, I was just waiting for user acceptance. So, yes, it's it's live. Um, I mentioned in the issue like, hey, take a look. If it looks good to you, we can just close it out. >> Yeah, very cool. I think it would be I was just wondering like um if we could get icons or if we should just like use emo uh emojis for these different stages. >> Yeah. Yeah. I think that's like a little Friday project to work on the icons. >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> I mean, I'm, you know, uh, when I make like those things matter. >> Claude can help. >> Yes. >> Very cool. Okay. Well, if Claude can help, then that's perfect. >> Yes. >> Um, all right. Um, so let's get into the main part of the agenda. So, oh 1694, move on boarding issues and board to, um, separate repo. That was my request. >> Yeah, >> I feel like there's some back and forth going there like >> Yeah. >> So, yeah, folks might recall. Sorry. Go sorry. Go ahead. >> Yeah. You know, when the merger happened and we had all of the onboarding or when new projects, we had the template Jory created with like a checklist and things got lost and sometimes things lived with the CPC and sometimes with the project. So then it turned into kind of a PM management tool for every task in the CPC. And for me, it's sort of like on a search engine, if it's not on the first page, it doesn't exist. And so I think things were getting lost uh on CPC issues that needed CPC input. And so my thoughts were if an issue doesn't need CPC comments or issues, then we need to move that tracking to another location. Yeah. So, I have a little bit of a different understanding of the history of this and um and I entirely agree with you that the current state of things is terrible and is making the CPC repository very hard to scan unless you're very organized. Um, so I agree was like the problem. I the first day I saw the the the whole like sort of wall of like onboarding issues, I kind of like had a I think I pinged Joe and said like, "Are you chill with this?" And Joe was like, "Yeah, I'm chill with this." >> I'm not chill with that. Well, and instead of instead of focusing on the past, let's just focus on what we should do to >> No. So, I agree. No, but the the the the reason that we had so many issues in the repository um that were checklist and that were not tackled was because those were um onboarding issues for projects that were already part of the foundation that we're trying to retrofit and that we didn't have project PM support to actually do and understandably they were also kind of like why are you asking us to do this? have been here before you, right? Which is, you know, a fairly reasonable um uh position to hold. Um so those check those checklists weren't um filled in because not because the system wasn't working, but because uh the sort of like um social context around them was like not ideal. >> Good work. >> Um >> yeah. Um and and so when so when I when I did the on boarding with AMP, what I did is exactly the process that um Ben and Kate have been doing in the main repository, which is create a you know, one issue per line item, but I had that on the AMP side um in in a governance repository there. And so that's where the conversations were happening. And then we're kind of like reporting on the output of those conversations in the checklist. Um, the reason we wanted to move these things back from uh the onboarding repository or the status update, whatever that thing was called, to the CPC is that we were no longer tracking them and they were like re happening somewhere in the back and no one really knew what was going on. Um, so I I I kind of like the idea of like there's one checklist uh and there's only one item and that one's in the CPC and then we can just track this there and the CPC knows what's going on, right? But then now then now then there's a whole bunch of automation for like creating issues from like uh a checklist and that no longer works if you do it in separate repositories etc. So I I feel like there's some like implementation issues here, but like the there was one issue and we know where it is was kind of nice and I still think we should do something like this. >> So um and I want to let Kate uh speak to this also because she's been working a lot with the projects on onboarding. Um I do think having separate issues is the is the right way to go. um it makes it much easier to work with the projects which is really what this is is for um in terms of having the conversation in one particular issue. It's focused um we have a project board that's um what all this stuff powers that makes it really easy to see the status which we've never had before. Um, so I think if if it's over if it's overwhelming to have all these issues in the GitHub repo, um, I think the solution to that is is moving it to a different um, repository. Um, we can still have a an issue an overall issue in the CPC repo that points to the other place. So the CPC has eyes on it, but um I don't want to lose having um atomic tasks that are easy to collaborate with the other projects on. >> Yes. Um yeah, I don't have strong feelings either way. Um, I just pointing out and I know this was already pointed out and Toby had a comment on the issue that like we we just moved everything over which uh which is like if if that's not the way we want to do it that's fine but like can we just be really sure this time whatever we do that that's like we're going to at least commit to that for a little bit besides like be here and like two months later and say we want to move everything back. Robin, >> yeah, I do have strong feelings. So, and I think going back to the earlier part of this meeting is driving more participation and engagement in the CPC and a better understanding of what interesting things we work on. If you do kind of show up and have to scroll and scroll and scroll, it's just harder to have context and perspective and, you know, quick glance. Hey, >> um I have a strong preference for keeping the project board and if that means moving to a separate repo, I don't have an issue with that. The only concern I would have is I think this can be done but you would all know better than me. Are we able to connect the sub issues in a different repo to kind of check off in one single repo? like one single issue in the CPC. That way we'll have somewhere we can track it without PMO needing to kind of manually go back and forth. >> I think I understand what you're asking. Let's talk about that offline. I think I I think we can accomplish this without getting to without having to do anything manual. >> Okay, that works for me. >> Um >> so I think there Sorry, Chris. Oh, no. I was just going to say I'm 100% going to back, you know, whoever is going to be working on this stuff mostly. Whatever makes your life easier, whatever the path of least resistance is, that's way more important to me than, you know, any other factors here. Um I will I do just as a reminder one of the reasons one of the motivations for moving everything back to the CPC repo was that it was perceived that having it in this separate repo that nobody really looks at or follows was one of the things contributing to the stagnation and you know non-movement of that stuff. Um but it sounds like that's sort of would not be an an issue here anymore. Yeah, I think a couple other things to keep in mind is that there are a lot of tasks to do for onboarding a project. So this is actually reflecting fact which I think is important. Um the the other thing is um in an ideal world where we didn't have this big backlog that long list of issues only exists when we're on boarding a project and that really should be a month or two. So for example like geodah right which was one of the projects we've onboarded recently. Yes there was a long list of issues we worked on them relatively quickly and you know that list went away. So this problem will arise when we onboard a project because we file like the 20 issues that we need. Um but yeah it's not a permanent thing. >> We just had lit and perspective and geodah. So >> yeah it will happen I guess is the is the point. Yeah, >> I mean I I think regardless um I think there's something that everyone's clear with here is if um this needs 20 issues per on boarding, it can't happen in the CPC >> because it doesn't work for anyone. I think that's quite clear. Um, so I think um if if like taking this back to the repository in which it was before or creating a new one I I frankly if we could reuse whatever we had before um if there's a history there to like be maintained or something maybe that makes sense. If not like whatever, right? >> Yeah, we'll poke around. >> Um uh I think that makes sense. Um and then I I think that what's important is that the CPC doesn't lose track of stuff. Um um and if that is you just have an uh a report on this topic um uh you know at every CPC call and just give us an update on what's going on. That could also work. >> Yeah. I mean we we do have this the the board which allows you to see it's a it's really nice because it allows you to see the progress of these tasks for each project individually. And so linking to that from our um CPC agenda is a good idea, >> right? But then we need someone to run with it because if not, it's going to take us like a year and a half to actually pay attention to it during calls. >> Oh, I I just mean as a reminder for folks I'm a big fan of self-s serve like if you're interested in the status of of onboarding and you don't have actual work that needs to be done that you can just go to a board and see where things are. >> No, sure. I think that's great. Um, my ask is I think my ask is simple is if you want to completely remove all of this from the CPC. Um, I I I want like some form of status update from like uh staff on this on a semi-regular basis. um uh like in the like you know in the announcement section or like I like I don't some something because if not we just risk falling back into the the the thing where we don't hear about this for I don't know how long and then like weird things happen and it's sad. >> Yeah, I'm I'm less concerned about that because it's it's much smoother process to get things graduated and we do celebrate graduation very publicly. if things are blocked, we obviously like that's top of mind for me and Kate. So, we do include people. Um but yeah, I think um we can do a regular >> I hear you, but we have like you know four charters that are not approved and that is part of the pro like it's part of like this visibility problem. >> It's not the only thing but it's it's we need to like this is an area where we need to really improve how we work. >> Yeah. Um and so um yeah. All right. Um we don't have a lot of time left and we do have a private session that we need to do. Um is there anything that we would absolutely need to look at? Um, I think we're going to spend three minutes to decide what we work on in the next working session because we know Oh, we know what we're working on. No, we don't know what we're working on in the next working session. We know what we're working on in and the one after that. Um is there anything specific that we should do in the next working session um that um would be important to do outside of like it seems like the charter work remains like the biggest issue. >> Yeah, that's what I was going to say, but I kind of don't want you to work on it just because I won't be here. Uh, and I wasn't and I wasn't around for the last one as well. Um, uh, so but you know, certainly it shouldn't stop just because some folks won't be there. Um, because we have we have TC39 in Tokyo next week. All right. So, let's do cher work in the next working session more of and hopefully it will be just finalizing stuff by then. Um, oh, we could do that next week too if you want, Ben. I mean, that's actually funner more fun than charters. >> Yeah, >> so we can keep charters around for when Christmas is back. Yeah, I like that. >> We were just talking about it, but it seemed like something that there was some energy around and um >> Sure. >> Yeah. >> Can I ask you to file an issue on this and tag it was like working session? This is more fun. Thank you. All right. Um should we wrap this up and move into the private session? Okay. Um hearing seeing lots of nodding and hearing no uh opposition to do so. Uh let's uh close uh this public session. Um thank you all very much for um joining this uh call and and um looking at the stream and we'll see you in the working session in a week or in two weeks in the next CPC call. >> Perfect. No. Do you want to stop, OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-11-11, YouTube, 01k9w474ajndmqs3paek2taaej.