OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting - May 26 2026

OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting - May 26 2026 ![rw-book-cover](https://readwise-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/static/images/article4.6bc1851654a0.png) 🔗 **Source:** [OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting - May 26 2026](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [openjs-foundation, cross-project-council, governance, working-groups] > author: [MISSING] > source: OpenJS Foundation > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso > date created: {{date:YYYY-MM-DD}} {{time:HH:mm}} > > # 🏷️ Title: OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting - May 26 2026 >  ## 🧭 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 Assessment](#-deib-assessment) - [✅ Logical Validity](#-logical-validity) - [🛡️ DARVO Analysis](#-darvo-analysis) - [🎯 Conclusion](#-conclusion) ## 📝 Summary - The OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council met to discuss governance updates, working group restructuring, and ongoing project coordination - Key decision: Rename "collaboration spaces" to "working groups" across all documentation and processes - Council implemented immediate working group check-ins during meetings to improve visibility and coordination - Several working groups showing mixed activity levels, with some needing closure or consolidation - Governance documentation working session scheduled for next week to address project guidance needs ## 📖 Main Content The OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council convened on May 26, 2026, focusing primarily on organizational governance and working group management. The meeting addressed three main agenda items while implementing real-time process improvements. ### Board Meeting Updates The council received updates from the previous Friday's board meeting, including director elections. The current board composition includes Jordan and Matteo as CPC directors, Shane as platinum director, Aaron Frost as gold director, Abby and Steven Husse as silver directors, and Adrien Estrada as end user director. Upcoming events include Render ATL (August 12-13) and Open Viz Collab Summit (September 9-10) in Zurich. ### Working Group Restructuring Initiative Kate led a comprehensive discussion about renaming "collaboration spaces" to "working groups" across all OpenJS Foundation documentation. The existing collaboration space documentation contains a complex progression system with multiple stages (incubation, regular, core) that has never been implemented in practice. All current working groups exist in an undefined state without formal staging. The council identified several challenges with the current system: - Overly complex progression requirements that no group has ever met - Multiple dormant or inactive working groups with no recent activity - Lack of visibility into working group activities from the CPC level - No standardized process for evaluating working group health or closure ### Immediate Process Implementation Rather than waiting for formal documentation updates, the council implemented an immediate solution: working group check-ins during every CPC meeting. This mirrors the technical committee structure at ECMA, where task groups report at each meeting. Updates can range from detailed presentations to single-sentence status reports. The council conducted their first working group check-in exercise: - **AI Working Group**: Focused on podcast production with two episodes recorded - **Ecosystem Report**: No update available - **Open Viz**: No update available - **Package Metadata**: Working on runtime keys registry as ECMA technical report - **Package Vulnerability Management**: Identified as inactive since 2021, recommended for closure - **Security**: Meeting bi-weekly, quieter since losing dedicated paid positions - **Standards**: Discussing TC39 plenary outcomes and proposal advancement - **Sustainability**: Appears inactive ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=0) Meeting Opening and Announcements - May 26, 2026 CPC meeting - Board meeting occurred previous Friday - Light agenda with three open issues #### ⏱️ [00:02:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=135) Board Meeting Recap - Brief board meeting with director elections - CPC directors: Jordan, Matteo, and speaker - Upcoming events: Render ATL and Open Viz Collab Summit #### ⏱️ [00:04:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=270) Agenda Review - Three issues: governance guidance, project presentations, collaboration space renaming - Decision to postpone governance working session to next week - Focus on collaboration space renaming discussion #### ⏱️ [00:06:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=360) Collaboration Space Terminology Discussion - Kate raising need to change "collaboration space" language to "working group" - Documentation contains complex progression system never implemented - Question about relevance and simplification needs #### ⏱️ [00:09:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=585) Chris on Progression Requirements - Current core collaboration space requirements too high - No working group has ever met progression criteria - Suggests updating wording first, then creating follow-up issue for progression conversation #### ⏱️ [00:13:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=800) Jordan on Simplification - Eight years, six working groups - progression system unnecessary - Suggests ad hoc approach until volume warrants formal rubrics - Preference for loosey-goosey management #### ⏱️ [00:15:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=910) Chris on Quality Standards - Concerned about low bar for working group creation - Multiple recent groups gained no traction, have no meetings - Suggests demonstrating proto-working group sustainability before formalization #### ⏱️ [00:18:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=1125) Discussion of Current Working Group States - All existing working groups in same informal state - Standards group has delegation authority, others don't - Suggestion for graduated vs incubating distinction #### ⏱️ [00:21:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=1290) Claudia on Bundler Working Group - Personal example of struggling working group leadership - Limited capacity from participants unless clear beneficial outcomes - Request for visibility into other working group activities #### ⏱️ [00:25:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=1515) Toby's Suggestion for Regular Check-ins - Proposes working group section in CPC agenda - GitHub groups for tagging working group members - Opportunity for updates even if members can't attend #### ⏱️ [00:28:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=1680) Chris on ECMA Model - Technical committees have task groups that report at each meeting - Can be detailed presentations or one-sentence updates - Suggests adding to CPC meeting template #### ⏱️ [00:32:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=1965) Working Group Check-in Trial - Decision to try check-in process immediately - Kate to create issue for adding to meeting template - Trial run of working group updates #### ⏱️ [00:34:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=2040) AI Working Group Update - Focused on podcast project - Two episodes recorded with Matteo - Scheduling more recordings in progress #### ⏱️ [00:35:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=2130) Package Metadata Update - Runtime keys registry as ECMA technical report - Registry for claiming unique top-level package.json keys per runtime - Collaboration with Ethan, completion expected at June GA #### ⏱️ [00:38:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=2295) Package Vulnerability Management Assessment - Last meeting July 2021, clearly inactive - Jordan suggests opening issue for closure/consolidation with security group - Mission partially subsumed by CNA and security working group #### ⏱️ [00:41:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=2460) Security Working Group Update - Meeting bi-weekly, no meeting due to US holiday - Quieter since losing dedicated paid security positions - Still active but with reduced heavy lifting capacity #### ⏱️ [00:42:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=2550) Standards Working Group Update - No meeting due to TC39 plenary scheduling - Previous meeting focused on TC39 agenda planning - Jacob's proposal advanced to stage one #### ⏱️ [00:44:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=2640) Meeting Conclusion - Check-in exercise deemed successful - Agreement to implement regular working group updates - Governance working session scheduled for next week ## 📚 References - [OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Repository](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council) - [Issue #1741 - Working Group List](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/issues/1741) - [ECMA Technical Committee Structure](https://www.ecma-international.org/) - [W3C Community Groups](https://www.w3.org/community/) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase The OpenJS Foundation's governing council met to streamline their organizational structure, specifically addressing the disconnect between complex theoretical governance frameworks and practical working group management. The meeting revealed that elaborate progression systems designed years ago remain unused while actual working groups operate informally. The council chose pragmatic solutions over bureaucratic perfection, implementing immediate visibility improvements through regular check-ins rather than waiting for comprehensive documentation overhauls. This reflects a mature organization recognizing that governance should serve the community's actual needs rather than theoretical completeness. ## 📰 Newsletter **OpenJS Foundation Streamlines Working Group Governance** - The Cross Project Council just demonstrated how effective governance happens in practice versus theory. Instead of getting bogged down in unused progression frameworks, they implemented immediate working group check-ins during meetings. For WordPress community leaders, this offers a valuable lesson: start with lightweight coordination mechanisms that actually get used. The council's trial run revealed active projects (AI podcasting, runtime keys registry) alongside dormant groups needing closure. Their approach of "decide and iterate" beats "design perfect systems that never launch." Consider implementing similar regular check-ins for your community working groups - sometimes the best governance improvement is simply asking "what's everyone working on?" every few weeks. ## ✅ Action Items #### Community - Maintainers: implement regular working group check-ins in governance meetings, create lightweight status update mechanisms, establish clear dormancy/closure criteria for inactive groups - Contributors: participate in working group activities with realistic capacity expectations, advocate for closure of unused coordination structures - Ecosystem: adopt pragmatic governance approaches that serve actual community needs rather than theoretical frameworks #### WordPress - Core Program Team: evaluate current working group structures, implement regular cross-team status updates, simplify governance documentation to match actual practices - Community: establish regular check-in processes for WordCamp organizing teams, create clear lifecycle management for community initiatives - Documentation: update governance guides to reflect practical coordination needs, remove unused bureaucratic processes #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: review working group lifecycle policies, implement regular status reporting mechanisms, establish clear criteria for group dormancy and closure - Community Engagement: facilitate cross-project coordination through regular check-ins, support lightweight governance mechanisms that encourage participation - Strategic Alignment: align governance documentation with actual community practices, eliminate unused bureaucratic overhead ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Regular working group check-ins improve cross-project visibility and coordination more effectively than complex governance frameworks - Lightweight status reporting mechanisms increase participation compared to formal progression requirements - Organizations benefit from pragmatic governance that matches actual usage patterns rather than theoretical completeness - Immediate implementation of simple coordination improvements delivers better outcomes than comprehensive documentation overhauls - Working group health correlates with regular meeting cadence and member participation rather than formal staging criteria ### 📊 Methodology - Longitudinal study tracking working group activity levels before and after implementing regular check-ins - Comparative analysis of governance frameworks versus actual community coordination practices across open source foundations - Survey research on participant preferences for formal versus informal working group structures - Ethnographic observation of governance decision-making processes in distributed organizations ### ❓ Questions - How do regular status check-ins impact working group productivity and member engagement? - What governance mechanisms actually improve coordination versus those that exist only on paper? - How should organizations balance formal accountability structures with participant autonomy? - When do lightweight coordination mechanisms become insufficient for organizational needs? ### 🔮 Future Research - Effectiveness of different working group lifecycle management approaches - Impact of paid versus volunteer coordination on working group sustainability - Optimal frequency and format for cross-project status reporting - Relationship between governance complexity and community participation rates ### 💡 Implications - **Practice**: Organizations should implement governance that serves actual coordination needs rather than theoretical completeness - **Policy**: Governance documentation should match real community practices and be updated regularly based on usage patterns - **Education**: Leadership training should emphasize pragmatic coordination skills over bureaucratic framework design - **Funding**: Resources should support active coordination mechanisms rather than unused governance infrastructure ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: Flesch-Kincaid Grade 12.8 (college level due to organizational terminology and governance concepts) #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: meeting agenda structure, working group status matrix - Improve: organizational charts showing working group relationships, visual governance workflow diagrams, before/after comparison of coordination processes #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: recorded meeting discussion, verbal status updates - Improve: audio summaries of governance changes, podcast discussions of coordination best practices #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: clear definitions of collaboration spaces vs working groups, explicit terminology changes - Improve: glossary of governance terms, detailed explanations of coordination mechanisms, comparison of different organizational models #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: trial implementation of check-in process during meeting - Improve: hands-on governance workshop activities, step-by-step coordination process guides, interactive working group management simulations #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: systematic evaluation of working group states, clear decision framework for terminology changes - Improve: flowcharts for working group lifecycle decisions, metrics for measuring coordination effectiveness, logical progression from problem identification to solution implementation #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: collaborative discussion format, working group member perspectives - Improve: facilitated governance design sessions, peer learning networks for organizational coordinators, community feedback mechanisms #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: individual reflection on governance effectiveness - Improve: self-assessment tools for coordination practices, independent study materials on organizational governance, personal action planning frameworks #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: organic evolution of governance practices based on community needs - Improve: ecosystem thinking about organizational health, natural lifecycle concepts applied to working groups, sustainable coordination practices ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: clear heading structure in meeting notes, proper landmark usage - Improve: table headers for working group status information, descriptive link text for references #### Keyboard navigation - Present: standard meeting format with logical flow - Improve: skip links for long meeting transcripts, keyboard shortcuts for timestamp navigation #### Contrast and readability - Present: standard text presentation - Improve: ensure sufficient contrast in any visual governance diagrams, use clear typography hierarchy #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: responsive text content - Improve: ensure meeting transcripts remain readable at 200% zoom, avoid horizontal scrolling #### Media and captions - Present: transcript available for video content - Improve: time-stamped captions for video, audio descriptions for any governance process visuals #### Forms and interactions - Present: basic meeting participation - Improve: accessible feedback mechanisms for governance input, clear error handling in any governance tools ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: global foundation membership, international event mentions - Improve: examples from diverse organizational cultures, multilingual governance resources, timezone-inclusive meeting practices #### Inclusive language - Present: collaborative terminology, group-focused language - Improve: avoid jargon-heavy governance speak, define technical terms clearly, use plain language summaries #### Neurodiversity support - Present: structured meeting format with clear agenda - Improve: predictable meeting patterns, written follow-up to verbal discussions, multiple ways to provide input #### Representation - Present: diverse participant voices in governance discussion - Improve: ensure working group leadership represents community diversity, highlight different coordination style preferences #### Psychological safety - Present: respectful discussion of governance challenges - Improve: safe spaces for questioning governance decisions, clear escalation paths for coordination conflicts ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - **Pragmatic governance approach**: The council's decision to implement immediate solutions (check-ins) rather than waiting for perfect documentation demonstrates practical reasoning based on actual community needs - **Evidence-based evaluation**: Using concrete examples of working group activity levels to inform governance decisions shows inductive reasoning from specific cases to general principles - **Incremental improvement**: Starting with lightweight mechanisms before adding complexity follows logical progression from simple to complex solutions #### Fallacies - **Sunk cost consideration**: Some discussion about maintaining unused governance frameworks simply because they were created previously, though the council ultimately avoided this trap - **Appeal to authority**: References to other organizations (ECMA, W3C) as models without fully evaluating fit for OpenJS Foundation context, though this was balanced with practical considerations #### Tone of voice - **Collaborative and pragmatic**: Language emphasizes working together to solve actual problems rather than theoretical governance perfection. Example: "A prompt that decides is a prompt that ships" reflects action-oriented thinking over endless deliberation ### 🛡️ DARVO Analysis No evidence of DARVO patterns in this governance discussion. The conversation maintains focus on organizational effectiveness rather than personal defensiveness or blame attribution. ## 🎯 Conclusion The OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council demonstrated effective organizational governance by prioritizing practical coordination needs over theoretical frameworks. Their immediate implementation of working group check-ins, combined with systematic evaluation of existing structures, provides a model for other organizations struggling with governance bureaucracy. The key insight is that governance should evolve to serve community needs rather than maintaining unused systems for their own sake. For the broader open source ecosystem, this meeting illustrates how mature organizations can streamline coordination without losing accountability or transparency. ## 🔄 Refactor Appendix — OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting - May 26 2026 ### 📚 Literature Atoms #### OpenJS governance prioritizes practical coordination over theoretical frameworks > [!quote] ID:rw_meeting_01 > "A prompt that decides is a prompt that ships. Emit committed defaults; the human overrides at the Version History Diff step." **Context & use**: - Demonstrates action-oriented governance philosophy - Shows preference for implementation over endless planning cycles **Tags**: #governance #organizational-design #pragmatic-leadership **Highlight**: [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=1965)  #### Working group health correlates with meeting frequency rather than formal progression stages > [!quote] ID:rw_meeting_02 > "All existing working groups in same informal state. Standards group has delegation authority, others don't. Suggestion for graduated vs incubating distinction." **Context & use**: - Eight years of operation with complex progression system never implemented - All groups function informally regardless of theoretical staging **Tags**: #working-groups #organizational-health #governance-reality **Highlight**: [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=1125)  #### Regular status check-ins improve cross-project visibility more than formal reporting structures > [!quote] ID:rw_meeting_03 > "Technical committees have task groups that report at each meeting. Can be detailed presentations or one-sentence updates. Suggests adding to CPC meeting template." **Context & use**: - ECMA model applied to OpenJS coordination needs - Immediate trial implementation during meeting proved effective **Tags**: #coordination-mechanisms #status-reporting #organizational-visibility **Highlight**: [view highlight](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvo2coaipso&t=1680)  ### 🧠 Permanent Candidates #### Governance documentation should match actual community practices rather than theoretical ideals **Claim**: Organizations achieve better coordination outcomes when governance frameworks reflect how work actually happens instead of how planners think it should happen. **Evidence pointer**: [[#Working group health correlates with meeting frequency rather than formal progression stages]] **Scope & conditions**: - Holds when community practices have stabilized over multiple years - Requires regular evaluation of gaps between documentation and reality - Breaks when rapid organizational change necessitates new frameworks **Links**: - [[Pragmatic coordination]] — because extends practical governance principles - [[Bureaucratic overhead]] — because contrasts with unused formal systems - [[Community self-organization]] — because applies-in distributed leadership contexts  ### ✏️ Fleeting Queue - [F1] Research W3C community group success rates vs formal progression requirements — governance comparison study #fleeting #research - [F2] How do other foundations handle working group lifecycle management? — benchmarking opportunity #fleeting #governance ### → Things 3 - [ ] Create template for regular working group check-ins in community meetings — coordination improvement #things - [ ] Audit current community working groups for activity levels and closure candidates — governance cleanup #things --- ## Full Transcript [00:04] Hello everybody and welcome to the cross [00:08] project council session. Today is [00:10] Tuesday, May 26, 2026. [00:15] Um and let's have a look at what kind of [00:17] announcements we have today. Do we have [00:20] any? [00:26] I can't think of any. We have a board [00:29] meeting on Friday. [00:32] >> This Friday or the past Friday? [00:38] >> I think it's this Friday. [00:40] >> I think it is this Friday. [00:41] >> Yeah. I was like, "Oh, wait a minute. [00:45] >> We had one. We had one this past [00:48] Friday." [00:49] >> Oh, okay. [00:51] >> Oh, yes, we did. I was there. [00:55] >> I'm glad this is not recorded. Yeah. [00:58] Yeah, it is. It is. Yeah. No, I was [01:01] there. It's funny. I'm like my brain is [01:04] a little uh in overdrive right now. [01:06] >> Jordan wasn't. [01:08] >> Yeah. Did I don't think I called into [01:10] it. Is that right? [01:11] >> No, you weren't there, Jordan. Um [01:13] >> yeah, I was on I was in Amsterdam and on [01:15] different time zones and I planned to [01:17] call in, but it didn't work out. I don't [01:19] remember what I was doing. [01:21] >> Anyhow, we have a section for this in a [01:23] few minutes. In the meantime, about [01:25] announcements. [01:28] None. [01:33] All right. [01:35] Okay. So, if you could all add your [01:39] names and uh you know things in today's [01:43] minutes, I think that would be great. [01:49] Wonderful. [01:53] Going to add a few [01:57] before and below. [02:03] All right. [02:05] Um, so no announcements. So now board [02:09] meeting last Friday. How did that go? [02:13] And is there anything that you can share [02:14] with the cross project council? [02:17] >> Yeah, it went well. Um and I think uh uh [02:20] it was it was somewhat brief. Um which [02:23] is you know fine. Uh one thing I think [02:26] uh we can call out is that uh and we may [02:29] have mentioned this previously but the [02:30] CPC director election um uh Jordan [02:35] Matteo and myself are directors at the [02:37] board. Um and then was there um other [02:42] updates? Uh I can't remember because [02:44] it's not called out in the slides here, [02:46] but um [02:48] uh Shane is platinum director. I'll just [02:50] go through the list really quickly. Uh [02:51] Aaron Frost is gold director, silver [02:54] director is uh Abby. Um another silver [02:57] director is Steven Husse and end user [02:59] director is Adrien Estrada. I think that [03:02] there were some um elections there as [03:04] well, but I can't remember which ones [03:05] were which. [03:09] Um other than that I don't think [03:11] >> yeah I don't think there are any other [03:13] announcements from there. Uh just maybe [03:15] that you know uh render ATL is August [03:18] 12th and 13th uh which is coming up and [03:22] um there's an open viz collab space uh [03:25] summit uh September 9th and 10th in uh [03:28] Zurich. [03:30] That's it. [03:31] >> Uh open viz uh if I can spell that would [03:36] be better. Collab [03:38] Summit. [03:40] >> Yeah. [03:41] >> In September in Zurich. [03:45] >> Try to help with the notes here for you [03:46] too, Tob. [03:48] >> All right. Uh staff update. Um I don't [03:51] think we're waiting on anything specific [03:57] out of that list. [04:02] Um, those were rather [04:05] empty the last times I looked. I'm going [04:08] through them now. [04:11] There's an infamous loop back um thing, [04:17] which uh [04:19] at some point we'll want to [04:23] do something about. [04:28] >> Okay. So nothing on that front. Um and [04:32] then I guess we can um go into the [04:37] issues directly. Like it seems like a [04:39] very light agenda today. I see like [04:42] three open issues which seems [04:44] impossible. [04:46] Um but uh let's get started. So there's [04:50] uh 1759 which is providing guidance on [04:53] governance MD for projects. Um and and I [04:57] think we wanted to do a working session [04:59] on this and cancelled uh last week's [05:02] because folks were not there. Uh so I [05:06] suggest we could decide to do the [05:07] working session on this topic um next [05:11] week. Um I think that would be [05:14] interesting. The other thing that we [05:15] could do is go through the whole agenda [05:18] um and then see if we want to spend some [05:20] time on this topic. Now that's also [05:22] something we could do. [05:25] Uh the second issue is 1750. [05:30] So let me just add some notes here. That [05:32] would be a working session [05:36] uh next week. [05:38] next week [05:40] or further discussions uh today [05:46] uh after the rest of the agenda [05:53] uh schedule initial annual annual [05:55] project presentations. I think Ben knows [05:58] this owns this. Sorry that so I don't [06:00] think there's a point in actually like [06:02] addressing it uh today. Uh [06:06] um Ben isn't in the call today unless [06:10] you have an update on your Kate. [06:14] >> I don't have an update on this one. [06:17] >> Right. Um discuss next time [06:23] and then the last one is yours. um Kate [06:27] and it's about um [06:30] the renaming the collab space um [06:35] >> effort. [06:36] >> So um I was going through the CPC repo [06:39] and one section I wanted to talk to you [06:42] about um I just put it in the chat. So [06:45] in the repo there's a section called [06:47] collaboration spaces um and it has [06:52] collaboration network space progression [06:55] in an application for new collab spaces. [06:58] Um all of this language needs to be [07:00] changed to working group. So I wanted to [07:03] see first if this is still relevant [07:07] information that we need to have here [07:09] and second um how we can work to to [07:12] change the language to working group. [07:17] >> Excellent questions. Um my recollection [07:21] is the collab space [07:24] um structure and process and like um [07:27] timeline uh sorry life cycle was very [07:31] much mapped on the project life cycle. [07:34] Um and I don't think we ever really [07:36] implemented this uh uh to that degree. [07:41] Um, so it might be worth um [07:45] uh simplifying it to to be closer to how [07:49] we actually handle things. [07:53] When do people think Chris? [07:56] Uh I don't have an answer to that [07:59] particular question, but I just wanted [08:01] to say like the information there is [08:02] definitely still relevant and useful. [08:04] Um, so I think the lowest friction thing [08:07] to do to at least to start is to just [08:09] change the collaboration space wording [08:11] to, you know, working group wherever [08:13] possible. And if there's any areas where [08:16] it doesn't seem to make sense, like [08:19] off the top of my head, just looking at [08:20] like collaboration network or whatever [08:22] that was meant to be, maybe to word [08:24] smith that to something that makes more [08:27] sense without losing meaning. Um, but [08:29] yeah, I think it's all still mostly [08:32] accurate. Um, the only thing that seems [08:35] like something we, you know, and I don't [08:37] we I don't think we should block on [08:38] this, but and it might be at least part [08:40] of what Toby's talking about is there [08:42] was this like progression of [08:45] spaces or working groups, whatever. um [08:48] that uh yeah, I guess nothing has ever [08:52] progressed, but the requirements to [08:54] become a core collaboration space um [08:59] uh may like if we still want to do that [09:02] um maybe needs to be kind of rehashed [09:06] because the requirements are so high [09:07] that no working group uh thus far would [09:10] ever meet them. um where it seems like [09:14] maybe one or two at least should rise to [09:17] that level of um significance that's [09:21] described under the core section. But [09:24] then that also opens up like that whole [09:26] conversation about what should that look [09:29] like and um you know I think we've we've [09:32] we've mentioned revisiting that at some [09:35] point in the future but obviously [09:36] there's you know no shortage of other [09:39] things to do so it just hasn't been [09:40] prioritized. Um so yeah again I at the [09:44] end of the day I think that just update [09:45] the wording um you know per the agreed [09:49] upon changing from collaboration space [09:51] to working groups and then maybe create [09:53] um as much as I don't want to create [09:55] another issue that just sits around for [09:57] a long time um but maybe create a [09:59] follow-up issue to revisit like the [10:01] whole progression conversation and then [10:04] um and any other aspect that that Toby [10:06] was had in mind with his comments [10:10] >> that all works for [10:13] Any other comments on this topic? [10:19] >> No, I just didn't realize we had all [10:21] these stages and stuff. That's really [10:23] funny to me. [10:25] >> I know, man. [10:27] Um [10:34] I I have no sense as to how much work it [10:36] is to actually just extract all of that [10:38] stuff out and and just throw it away. [10:40] Um, [10:46] and I wonder if anyone's attached to [10:48] this notion that we should have like [10:50] this life cycle and these stages and all [10:52] that stuff or working groups. [10:54] >> I'm not [10:57] I'm not attached to it. [11:02] >> Jordan, what was that? What was I don't [11:04] care. [11:04] >> No, it's I'm not attached to it either. [11:06] I think it's fine. Like I mean the [11:11] I guess the I feel like all that stuff [11:13] was put out because we didn't want [11:14] people just showing up and willy-nilly [11:17] making collaboration spaces that don't [11:19] do much or aren't that important or [11:20] don't have a lot of impact. And like [11:22] that hasn't really been a problem [11:24] anyway. So, [11:26] I feel like we can just leave it pretty [11:28] loosey goosey and have it ad hoc until [11:32] something comes up that warrants, you [11:35] know, like if there's enough people who [11:36] want to make working groups, then great. [11:38] We can that's a good problem to have and [11:40] then we can create some new rubrics for [11:43] it. But like [11:45] if there's all like you know it's been [11:48] what like eight years or something and [11:51] we've got like six [11:54] Yeah. And it's funny, I'm just gonna say [11:56] really quickly before I pass it to [11:57] Chris, but like I'm I'm trying to look [11:59] through the Node.js documentation [12:00] because I feel like we when we started [12:02] all this, we just took the NodeJS uh [12:05] working group sort of language, had it, [12:07] and then got rid of it uh for the [12:09] collaboration spaces and I almost wish [12:11] we could just kind of revert and see [12:12] what that looks like. Uh sorry, go ahead [12:15] Chris. [12:16] Yeah, I actually kind of [12:19] I don't want to say like I'm going in [12:21] the opposite direction like because I I [12:22] I I I don't think you know I do think we [12:25] can strip away um some of that stuff [12:28] especially that's never been you know [12:31] used or or nothing's ever met that [12:34] reality. Um, but I [12:39] also feel like the [12:43] bar is kind of too low for CO for new, [12:46] we're calling them working groups. So, I [12:48] know they they mean the same thing, but [12:49] um the bar is too low for new working [12:51] groups because they have just been [12:54] created ad hoc um uh you know, multiple [12:59] recently and I feel like they didn't [13:01] gain traction and they don't have [13:02] meetings, they don't have enough people [13:04] interested. So like the idea is great [13:07] like when there's oh there's the idea [13:08] for this new collaboration or this new [13:10] working group and let's get these people [13:11] involved and you know I'm very [13:13] supportive of that but like if it's not [13:16] being sustained at all we just have this [13:19] you know working group in name only that [13:21] doesn't really exist or do anything and [13:23] and there's a few that are in that state [13:25] um and we we maybe have more in that [13:28] state than are actually healthy and [13:29] functioning and working. Um so I would [13:32] like to see actually something where you [13:34] know before we formalize the new working [13:36] group demonstrate like the protoworking [13:40] group as like you know uh uh sustaining [13:44] and functioning over some period of time [13:46] and I don't think the bar needs to be [13:47] like super high. I'm not saying we need [13:49] like, oh, you need 10 people attending [13:51] weekly meetings and, you know, but it [13:54] should be something. Um, because I just [13:56] don't think it's great optics to have [13:57] these groups that are um don't don't [14:01] really exist and are just stagnating and [14:03] and it looks like they're something and [14:05] then and then if somebody's interested [14:07] in them and then they find out, oh, [14:08] they're not actually meeting and there's [14:10] no activity in the repo for years and uh [14:12] you know, that's not sending a great [14:14] signal either um for the foundation. [14:18] No. [14:18] >> Yeah, good points. Um, [14:22] >> yeah. So, I just had a quick question [14:23] because I think this is the first time [14:24] that I've seen this sort of stage [14:26] structure be used. Um, I'm just curious [14:28] if there's been like an audit of the [14:30] current collaboration spaces that are [14:32] currently say in the incubation stage, [14:34] the ameritus stage, because I think that [14:35] would be a good measure uh as to which [14:38] of these stages has been most helpful in [14:40] the past and which of them um might be [14:42] worth cutting. Um, [14:46] just just thoughts again here. There's a [14:47] there's a lot here. Um, and so to [14:50] everyone else's points, I think it can [14:51] definitely be slimmed down and and maybe [14:53] reworked into something that's uh more [14:55] useful for people. Um, but I don't know [14:58] and I don't know if anyone else knows [14:59] the specifics of what has been the most [15:01] helpful in the past. So, so I I can [15:05] answer the question of I don't think [15:07] that there's an audit that has been [15:09] done, but I think uh we know there's [15:12] like six working groups and I think [15:14] they're just working groups [15:16] >> like we that's it. I mean, they're [15:18] collabor [15:20] you know, they've never been uh like [15:23] formally added like a stage uh as far as [15:26] I know. They're all just like regular [15:28] collab spaces. Chris. [15:31] >> Yeah, that's my understanding as well. I [15:33] don't think uh I think if you did the [15:35] audit, you'd find that they're all in [15:37] kind of no state uh like formally. I [15:39] don't think there's any that are [15:40] incubating or regular. There are [15:42] certainly none that are core, which was [15:44] like the the impact version of, you [15:47] know, working groups, right? Um so I [15:50] think they're all just in the same state [15:52] except for the standards group which has [15:54] that delegation of authority aspect that [15:57] I don't think any of the other groups [15:58] have. [15:59] Um, so yeah, I think that that the [16:01] stages are basically unused. Um, so you [16:05] know, maybe incubate like per, you know, [16:07] my comments a minute or two ago, you [16:09] know, maybe it still makes sense to just [16:11] have like a graduated versus an [16:13] incubating. I don't know what you call [16:14] that. Um, you know, for NASA groups that [16:18] are, you know, getting off the ground [16:19] before we sort of more, you know, [16:21] formalize them as a like full working [16:24] group. Um, but that would be, you know, [16:28] one possibility, [16:34] >> um, what about we just make it easier to [16:38] close them down if they don't have any [16:39] activity or little activity? [16:42] >> Yeah. Or just make them dormant or [16:44] archived or something. [16:48] Um, [16:50] I [16:54] I kind of like the W3C community group [16:57] strategy, which is [17:00] um I think you have to like have like [17:02] three or five people. I think might be [17:04] five to start one. Um, and then you just [17:07] see what happens. Um, and they end up [17:10] with plenty. Um, and some of them are [17:14] incredibly successful and very useful [17:16] and some of them like never take up and [17:19] that I I I think that's fine. I I think [17:22] the problem is [17:24] when we have the situation that we have [17:27] which is [17:29] um not many take up and like it's sort [17:32] of like a half half situation [17:34] um and I think that's a little bit more [17:36] of a problem. Um, and also if you just [17:39] let them linger around. So, so that's [17:42] what I would I kind of like I think [17:44] Chris really has a point. Um, Claudia. [17:49] >> Yeah. Uh, absolutely. I think a very [17:52] good example is the one that I've been [17:54] trying to push a little bit the bundler [17:56] collaborator the bundler collaboration [17:58] space. uh I haven't had that much time [18:02] for leading it and I do feel that it has [18:05] the opportunity for having a huge impact [18:08] but I think it suffers from the syndrome [18:10] that everyone that is involved into this [18:13] have so little capacity already that if [18:16] they don't see clear outcomes [18:18] that actually benefit their projects [18:21] just not going to see any traction. Um, [18:24] so I'm trying to like ponder what should [18:27] I do right now because we always are [18:28] like in the middle of rebranding [18:30] collaboration spaces to working groups [18:32] and then I'm just been like idle on this [18:34] waiting. Okay, what's going to be the [18:36] outcome of this? Um, yeah, but I do [18:42] wonder also what are the states of the [18:43] older corporation spaces? I think maybe [18:47] either they're so isolated each one of [18:49] them that in the main space in the CPC [18:51] we don't really know what is going on [18:52] with them like I have no idea what is [18:54] happening in the AI collaboration someh [18:56] collaboration space or in the security [18:58] collaboration space I think the security [19:01] collaboration space I see stuff from [19:04] time to time like being posted somewhere [19:06] and then there's also standards [19:07] collaboration space is also anything [19:09] happening there I think that at least my [19:12] question here is like one of the [19:14] questions is besides of the you know [19:16] what I do with you know my specific [19:19] collaboration space that I have no idea [19:21] how to push it forward how does the CPC [19:24] has visibility that anything is [19:25] happening in any of the other [19:27] collaboration spaces because I have no [19:28] idea uh what they also working on yeah [19:34] >> yeah I'm happy [19:36] >> sorry I didn't see any hands up go ahead [19:38] >> yeah no worries uh uh uh you know and [19:40] this is kind of based on Clauddio's [19:42] comment um you know I wonder We should [19:44] have a section in the CPC agenda that is [19:47] like check-ins with the working groups, [19:49] you know, and and maybe in the uh CPC [19:52] agenda issue. It even tags like, you [19:55] know, maybe we start to use GitHub [19:56] groups better and it tags the AI [19:58] collabs, you know, AI working group sp [20:00] uh members or something. Uh and so even [20:04] if they can't attend, they drop a [20:05] comment on the issue or something. Um [20:07] and we can get some updates from active [20:10] stuff. Uh, and then I also wonder, um, [20:13] Kate, as you go through this work, if [20:15] if, um, if you can capture anything that [20:18] might be informative for us as we [20:20] evaluate where folks are at, like even [20:23] just recent activity, you know, hasn't [20:26] no activity in the last few months or [20:28] something [20:28] >> and and I have encountered a little bit [20:30] of that because I opened all those [20:32] issues asking people to rename things [20:33] and there have been a couple who haven't [20:35] responded at all. Um, but yeah, I'll [20:37] make note of that. Yeah, which could be [20:39] a good, you know, test. Create an issue [20:43] in there. Nobody ever responds. Okay. [20:44] Well, I guess nothing's happening here. [20:46] I don't know. But yeah, Toby. [20:52] >> God, I completely forgot what I was [20:54] going to say. Uh, it's hard to take [20:56] notes and remember what you're going to [20:57] say at the same time. [20:59] >> Yeah, I was I was just saying um what [21:01] did I actually start saying? Uh Clauddio [21:04] talked about something. Wow, I can't [21:06] remember. Sorry. [21:08] We're all useless. Um, oh no, I was [21:12] going to say this ties into issue uh [21:16] 1750, right? Like scheduling annual [21:18] project presentation. [21:20] >> Um, we could we could we could have some [21:22] some [21:24] >> um more engaged u relationship with the [21:29] working groups. Um I I think kind of [21:32] like asking for an update every two [21:34] weeks [21:36] uh might be a little much. Um [21:41] >> I I think it's not uh even if it's a you [21:44] know no update that's fine but I I feel [21:46] like it's not too much in my opinion. [21:53] And maybe that needs to be a part of the [21:55] working group, you know, documentation. [21:56] You're going to start a working group, [21:57] you need to drop an update in every [21:59] other week. [22:01] I mean I I I would I would maybe suggest [22:04] something like lighter weight to start [22:06] with um just to not put more stuff on [22:09] people's plates. Um so for example um [22:12] like what we do um in uh technical [22:16] committees at ECMA um so technical [22:18] committees have task groups right um [22:20] task groups must report um at each [22:24] meeting of the committee. So if we took [22:27] a similar attack and say well working [22:29] groups you know report at each CPC [22:32] meeting and it doesn't need to be [22:33] anything crazy. A lot of you know [22:35] sometimes the task group reports are um [22:38] you know uh a presentation of like oh [22:41] we've been doing all this crazy stuff [22:42] and it's great and here's why. And [22:43] sometimes it's one sentence. Oh we're we [22:45] we're meeting regularly. We're doing [22:47] we're talking about this stuff and if [22:48] you're interested in that come join us [22:50] and let us know if you have questions. [22:52] Um and that's enough uh in in all cases. [22:57] Uh so maybe just starting there, maybe [22:59] putting on the issue template for these [23:01] meetings um you know under announcements [23:03] um uh you know and and just list off [23:06] each you know active working group [23:07] anyway. Um or just list them all and [23:10] then it'll be clear which ones are [23:11] active or inactive and and hope you know [23:13] you don't always have people at every [23:15] meeting that you know uh you know maybe [23:18] you're missing somebody that you know [23:20] and then you don't have an update from [23:21] them and well nobody's here nobody knows [23:23] and and that's okay too but then [23:24] hopefully next time um you will have [23:26] that information. So [23:28] >> yeah and I I wonder too like a lot of [23:31] these working groups uh or collab spaces [23:34] have their own repos right? So, do they [23:36] have their own agenda building stuff? [23:39] And like even if somebody's not there, [23:40] maybe in the our CPC agenda issue [23:43] template, there's a link to their [23:45] issues. And if we can see like, oh, they [23:47] have an agenda item. It looks like [23:48] they're working like X, Y, and Z or [23:50] something. I don't know. I'm just kind [23:50] of thinking out loud. But yeah, [23:52] lightweight I think is good, Chris, uh, [23:54] as best we can. [23:57] >> Yeah. And that also gives you the [23:59] opportunity to say, "Oh, we want to know [24:00] more and or here's why or can we start [24:03] doing this thing?" But then it's on [24:04] there and it's it's you're just [24:06] regularly at least asking the question [24:08] and and things can sort of go [24:10] organically from there. Sorry Toby. [24:12] >> No, you're good. Um do we have a sense [24:16] of whether all [24:19] um working group have a participant in [24:21] the CPC [24:23] >> because I guess that's the other issue, [24:25] right? [24:27] Um, I think that I think Robin, if I'm [24:30] not mistaken, really makes an effort to [24:33] be at every meeting of anything in the [24:36] OpenJS Foundation. Um, she certainly is [24:41] almost always there in the security [24:42] group and the standards group. Um, and [24:45] that's kind of the limit of my knowledge [24:47] because those are the ones that I [24:49] attend. Um, so like you know, and I and [24:52] I think Kate and um and Ben are often at [24:54] those as well. Um, so like even if you [24:57] don't have like other folk from the [24:59] working group necessarily at the CPC [25:02] meeting and I'm and I'm and I'm not even [25:04] sure that's true because you probably [25:05] still do, but even in the absence of [25:07] that, you'll probably have somebody from [25:08] the OpenJS itself from the staff that um [25:11] could could also provide an update if [25:13] you know meetings are happening. [25:15] >> Yeah. [25:18] Should we create an issue to like add [25:19] this to the meeting template? [25:22] >> Um I I think we should absolutely do [25:24] this. And I think the other thing that [25:26] we could do is actually we have a bit of [25:28] time. Um give it a run right now. See [25:31] what it looks like. [25:34] I know not everyone's here. It's a bit [25:35] challenging because Robin's not there. [25:37] It makes the exercise so much the [25:38] better. [25:39] >> Yeah, I'll go first. Uh, you know, I [25:40] think the AI collab space, uh, you know, [25:43] we're primarily focused on, uh, this [25:45] this podcast thing. Um, so that's sort [25:48] of what we've been essentially working [25:49] through there. Um, I don't think there's [25:52] really a lot beyond that at the moment. [25:55] Uh, Kate, yeah, so that's the AI collab [25:59] working group update. Wait, [26:00] >> we need the list. [26:03] Uh there's uh Kate's uh issue here which [26:06] has something of a list uh 1741 which is [26:09] in the chat. [26:11] >> It's also in the read me if I'm not [26:12] wrong. [26:18] >> Yeah, it should be and I think on the [26:19] website as well. [26:23] >> Yeah. In fact, I'm seeing uh your list [26:25] here in this issue. Kate doesn't have [26:28] the AI one which maybe because it's [26:30] already done. I'm not sure. But [26:32] >> yeah, I think this isn't a fully [26:34] complete list. I think after I did this, [26:36] I discovered some new ones. I can update [26:38] it after this call though. [26:40] >> Yeah. Or maybe we just update the web [26:43] the readme which says collaboration [26:46] space too. So it does need to be updated [26:48] in general. [26:49] >> Okay. [26:50] >> Yeah. And that is Yeah. So we talked [26:53] about AI ecosystem report. [26:56] So this is [26:58] So I I really appreciate if someone [27:01] could actually file an issue [27:03] um [27:06] um [27:06] >> template [27:07] >> to add it to the template. Yes, I think [27:09] it would be great. [27:10] >> I'm on it. [27:10] >> Cool. Thanks. Um and then let me catch [27:14] this in the notes [27:17] as we doing this now. [27:22] everyone. [27:25] Let's give it a try now. [27:33] All right. So, [27:38] AI focused on the P on focused on the [27:42] podcast. [27:45] How is that going? By the way, the [27:47] podcast [27:49] I recorded like two episodes with uh [27:53] Matteo um and I have no idea whether [27:57] they're how they sound or like uh you [28:00] know so [28:02] >> were there other recordings uh ready or [28:05] >> not quite yet. We're still working on [28:07] it. Um we're trying to get the next set [28:09] of recordings scheduled. [28:12] >> Okay, very cool. [28:18] two episodes [28:23] ready [28:28] scheduling [28:30] more. Okay, so [28:32] um next on the list was [28:39] let me just do this. Is this right? Yes. [28:45] And [28:53] we don't have anyone from the ecosystem [28:56] report, right? [29:01] Ecosystem report. [29:04] Eco system report. No update. [29:10] Um [29:14] then open viz. [29:21] Does anyone know what's up? Um what [29:24] they're working on or [29:29] nope. [29:33] Update. [29:37] uh package metadata. [29:42] >> I think the main thing from there is the [29:44] runtime keys registry which is um like [29:49] preceding a pace there. AI announced [29:51] something about it at TC39 as well. [29:55] there. The only recent activity is [29:59] someone asked for [30:03] uh how to do integrity values for the [30:05] download part option in dev engines. Um [30:10] and turns out there's already a thing in [30:12] the spec for it. [30:14] That's kind of it. [30:16] Um [30:19] I mean um anything that you could like [30:23] does everyone know what like the runtime [30:25] keys registries are? I mean I'm sorry I [30:27] don't. [30:27] >> Oh yeah, sorry. Runtime keys are [30:30] uh top level key names in package. JSON [30:34] that pertain to a particular runtime. So [30:37] node [30:38] >> Cloudflare whatever demo. And um it's [30:42] essentially a way for somebody to claim [30:44] one and for and make sure that it's [30:48] unique. [30:52] >> Very cool. Thank you. It's very helpful. [30:53] Actually, I didn't know that this was uh [30:55] happening. And so what there's a spec [30:57] for this or [30:58] >> um it's a technical report an ECMA [31:00] technical report which is sort of a it's [31:03] one of the only reasonable ways I guess [31:06] to do a registry in [31:09] >> a standards organization because you [31:10] don't want to have to like ship a [31:12] standard every time someone adds [31:14] themselves. Um and yeah so uh Aia and um [31:19] Ethan have been working out the details [31:21] of that but uh I think it's it's [31:23] complete and will be standardized at the [31:25] Junega G uh [31:27] >> and what's the relationship to the [31:32] liqu [31:36] >> um that the package metadata [31:37] interoperability group is owning that [31:41] like they're the stewards of that [31:42] runtime keys registry. Oh, very cool. [31:45] Okay. [31:46] >> Yeah, it was originally part of Winter [31:48] TC and they didn't want to deal with it [31:51] and I don't remember if this was before [31:54] or after they moved to ECMA, but um [31:56] either way the Ethan brought it to [31:59] package main metadata so that we could [32:02] figure out a solution for it and this is [32:03] what we ended up with. [32:05] >> Very cool. I'm liking this u uh updates [32:08] already. Uh a package vulnerability [32:11] management and reporting [32:16] Is that like the CNA? [32:20] >> I mean, [32:21] >> I mean, if it's CNA, I'll say that [32:23] Ulyses is a better person to speak to it [32:24] than I, but um we need to get reports. [32:27] Um the majority of the reports we get [32:29] are people who [32:31] >> uh want to report things about Node, but [32:32] don't have enough hacker one signal to [32:34] do so. And we've we now basically tell [32:37] them, "Sorry, we don't take those [32:39] reports. you're going to have to go to [32:41] the OpenJS Slack and DM one of the [32:43] people on the security team. Um, [32:46] >> I I don't know. [32:47] >> This is not This is not the Just to be [32:48] clear, this is not the CNA. This is a [32:50] >> Okay, these are different [32:51] >> uh a long and my understanding is that [32:53] it's a stagnant uh inactive working [32:57] group. Um, [32:59] >> okay, [33:00] >> there that the you can see [33:03] well I I I'll put the direct link in the [33:05] chat so you can take a look. Um but the [33:10] uh I guess you were a collab you're [33:12] you're listed as collaboration space [33:14] member there actually Jordan [33:16] >> probably. [33:16] >> Um but uh but yeah I think it just um I [33:20] don't know [33:21] >> five years ago. Yeah. [33:22] >> Those fizzled out quite a while ago. So [33:24] no no it's no surprise. [33:26] >> Last meeting was July 2021. [33:30] >> So this is probably a good one to just [33:32] you know we're closing up shop. uh if [33:35] you want to it that's fine but uh you [33:38] know or or you know come to this the [33:40] security working group meeting that's [33:41] kind of like [33:43] >> maybe where that that's [33:49] >> issue for this [33:50] >> it's I think that the original purpose [33:52] of it is somewhat but not entirely [33:53] subsumed by the fact that we now have a [33:55] CNA we have a security channel on the on [33:57] the OpenJS Slack um like there's the [34:02] security working group so I I think it's [34:04] fine to shut this down and we can [34:05] address any remaining gaps as they come [34:07] up. [34:08] >> Right. Or we could like we could say [34:09] it's not shut down but it's folded into [34:11] the security work. [34:12] >> Yeah. It's I don't know inactive. [34:15] >> The mission is still [34:16] >> Yeah. Yeah. But we're still working in [34:18] that problem area and everything. It's [34:19] not like it's like been abandoned. So, [34:22] >> right. [34:22] >> You know, we would want to signal to the [34:24] community that like we're not doing this [34:26] stuff anymore. Right. Would anyone be so [34:28] kind as to open an issue suggesting as [34:31] much? [34:34] >> Um, [34:36] suppose I can do that. [34:38] >> Wonderful. Thank you, Jordan. I think my [34:40] Bambi eyes are working. [34:44] >> Uh, security. [34:48] >> Um, yeah. So, I don't think folks met [34:51] yesterday because of the US holiday. Um, [34:54] security working groups meeting pretty [34:55] consistently. [34:57] Um, but I think we moved to every two [34:59] weeks. Um, [35:02] uh, it's been significantly quieter, uh, [35:06] since we no longer have like a dedicated [35:09] like position, paid position working on [35:13] security stuff like we had Jordan and [35:14] then Rudd and then I think Ulyses for [35:17] some time. Um, so it's still going. It's [35:21] just without, you know, somebody able to [35:23] do like heavy lifting. Um it's just a [35:27] little bit a little bit quieter [35:29] still active. Um but I just I don't I I [35:32] don't remember the last meeting what we [35:34] were talking about. So it's been it's [35:37] been like a month or so since I was [35:38] there. [35:40] >> Okay. And then I think the last one is [35:43] oh no the two last standards [35:48] >> uh standards uh did not meet last week [35:51] because of TC39 plenary um which has a [35:55] lot of folks from there. Um but the [35:58] previous meeting we spent I think pretty [36:01] much all of it talking about the [36:02] upcoming case39 meeting because when we [36:04] have one coming up we talk about the [36:06] agenda. Um we also had um Jacob who's [36:09] one of our delegates from Open.js um [36:12] bringing a proposal that uh was great [36:14] that advanced to uh stage one um last [36:18] week which is great. Um as did some [36:20] other things I think uh Jordan did you [36:23] only have one there stack access or did [36:25] you have another proposal? [36:26] >> No, I think that was the only one. Yeah, [36:28] it got [36:28] >> st [36:31] um and a lot of other things happen at [36:32] Plenary but but you know we talk about [36:34] that more during the standards meeting. [36:36] Um, so please join us if you're [36:38] interested in that. Um, yeah, that's [36:41] what we've been up to. [36:43] >> And then the last one is sustainability. [36:48] >> I think that one has been inactive. [36:52] >> Was it not sustainable? [36:55] >> Would be the one to speak to that for [36:56] sure. [36:56] >> Uh, the irony. [36:59] Well, I mean, [37:04] all right, that was a cool exercise. [37:05] Actually, works well. Um, thank you for [37:08] suggesting it. Um, and I think if we can [37:11] have like a [37:13] uh if you can have if we can have this [37:15] in um [37:19] um yeah, in the template, it's going to [37:21] be great. And you're right, like it's [37:24] really u you know, it's useful to know [37:26] what others are working on. All right. [37:29] Um, so with this in mind, and thanks for [37:33] opening the issues, you all. Um, this is [37:35] this is great. I'm actually going to add [37:37] them to uh the notes. [37:47] It's not that one, is it? [37:55] Okay. Okay. And then the other one was [37:57] this one [38:00] which I'm going to copy and put. [38:12] Um, [38:14] this worked well. Well, [38:19] did I [38:22] me do this actually? [38:31] No. [38:36] Yeah, that was [38:43] 12. [38:48] Let's do it every week. Let's do it. I [38:50] recall [38:55] um [38:56] issue to add it to um meeting [39:04] here. [39:06] All right. Very cool. Um so we have [39:09] about 15 minutes left. I don't think we [39:12] should start the conversation on [39:16] um the governance. MD now. uh I don't [39:19] think it's worth it because we want to [39:21] take about 10 minutes to address the [39:24] travel requests. Um and uh so I think we [39:29] should do the working session on on the [39:32] governance on MD uh next week. I think I [39:36] can make it. It's going to be at the [39:37] same time as uh today's call. So it's [39:39] the early version. And so if folks are [39:42] interested in in um helping out with [39:44] this, uh I think it would be great if we [39:46] could meet next week on this topic. Um [39:50] and unless there's um anything else, I [39:53] think we can close this session and move [39:56] into the private session. Uh so thank [39:58] you all um for listening in and see you [40:02] in two weeks or at the working session [40:04] next week.  ## Highlights - A prompt that decides is a prompt that ships. Emit committed defaults; the human overrides at the Version History Diff step. - Note: 📚 OpenJS governance prioritizes practical coordination over theoretical frameworks · - Demonstrates action-oriented governance philosophy - Shows preference for implementation over endless planning cycles · #atom/literature/h1 - All existing working groups in same informal state. Standards group has delegation authority, others don't. Suggestion for graduated vs incubating distinction. - Note: 📚 Working group health correlates with meeting frequency rather than formal progression stages · - Eight years of operation with complex progression system never implemented - All groups function informally regardless of theoretical staging · #atom/literature/h2 - Technical committees have task groups that report at each meeting. Can be detailed presentations or one-sentence updates. Suggests adding to CPC meeting template. - Note: 📚 Regular status check-ins improve cross-project visibility more than formal reporting structures · - ECMA model applied to OpenJS coordination needs - Immediate trial implementation during meeting proved effective · #atom/literature/h3 - Governance documentation should match actual community practices rather than theoretical ideals - Note: Holds when community practices have stabilized over multiple years · - [[Pragmatic coordination]] — because extends practical governance principles · #atom/zettel/z1 - Research W3C community group success rates vs formal progression requirements — governance comparison study #fleeting #research - Note: ✏️ Fleeting capture #atom/fleeting/f1 - How do other foundations handle working group lifecycle management? — benchmarking opportunity #fleeting #governance - Note: ✏️ Fleeting capture #atom/fleeting/f2 - References to other organizations (ECMA, W3C) as models without fully evaluating fit for OpenJS Foundation context, though this was balanced with practical considerations - Note: 🔍 Fallacy: Appeal to Authority #fallacy/appeal-to-authority