OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-11-11 🔗 **Source:** [OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-11-11](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw) > [!note]+ Document Notes > tags: [openjs, cpc, governance] > author: OpenJS Foundation > source: YouTube > reference: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw > date created: 2025-11-11 00:00 > > # 🏷️ Title: OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council Meeting 2025-11-11 > <!-- deep-read:sections start --> ## 🧰 Action Inbox - [H1] Create PR for simplified election documentation — combines impact/regular voting tiers #governance - [H2] Move onboarding issues to separate repository — maintain project board visibility #process - [H3] Schedule quarterly project status presentations — increase CPC engagement #community ## 🧭 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) ### 🔗 References - [OpenJS Foundation](https://openjsf.org/) - [CPC Repository](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council) ## 📝 Summary - The OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council conducted their regular meeting on November 11, 2025 - New voting representatives were announced: Jordan Harband (at-large), Chris de Almeida and Ethan Arrowood (regular) - Major governance discussions focused on simplifying election processes and improving project engagement - Operational issues around onboarding project management were addressed with proposed repository restructuring - Key tensions exist between maintaining visibility and managing workflow complexity ## 📖 Main Content The meeting covered critical governance reforms for the OpenJS Foundation's Cross Project Council. The primary discussion centered on simplifying the complex election system that currently distinguishes between impact voting representatives, regular voting members, and non-impact voting members - a structure that has proven confusing and operationally challenging. Ben Coe proposed significant changes including appointing impact voting representatives (similar to how platinum board members operate) rather than electing them annually, and combining non-impact and regular voting member tiers into a single category. This stems from practical observations that impact representatives rarely change and many projects lack the contributor depth for meaningful elections. The conversation revealed broader engagement challenges, with approximately half of voting members consistently absent from meetings. This raises questions about effective governance when decision-makers lack context from regular participation. The council operates by consensus rather than formal votes, which partially mitigates this issue but doesn't address the underlying representation problem. A secondary but significant operational issue involved managing the overwhelming number of onboarding issues in the main CPC repository. The current system creates 20+ individual issues per project onboarding, making it difficult to navigate and find relevant CPC business. The proposed solution involves moving these tracking issues to a separate repository while maintaining oversight through project boards and regular status updates. ## 🗒️ Notes #### ⏱️ [00:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=0) — [H1] Meeting Opening and New Voting Representatives - Key idea: Three new voting representatives announced for the CPC - Evidence: "Jordan Harband will be the at-large and our two regular are Chris Dale Ma and Ethan Arrowood" #### ⏱️ [02:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=150) — [H2] Board Meeting Updates on Partnership Expansion - Key idea: Foundation exploring new fundraising and partnership strategies - Evidence: "brainstorming different ways to expand our partnership program essentially and further fundraising strategies" #### ⏱️ [04:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=285) — [H1] Election Documentation Clarification Need - Key idea: Current election information scattered across documents causing confusion - Evidence: "there was an issue around trying to clarify how the elections are run because the information is scattered in different documents" #### ⏱️ [07:12](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=432) — [H2] Impact Voting Representatives Appointment Proposal - Key idea: Propose appointing rather than electing impact voting representatives - Evidence: "impact voting representatives be appointed rather than elected. This is analogous to how platinum board members operate" #### ⏱️ [09:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=570) — [H3] Annual Elections Show Minimal Change - Key idea: Impact representatives rarely change in practice despite yearly elections - Evidence: "very rarely change. The times when they do change is usually when someone leaves a project" #### ⏱️ [12:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=735) — [H2] Engagement Problem with Missing Context - Key idea: Need better ways to understand what projects want from CPC involvement - Evidence: "what are we missing that is why folks are not more active in maybe this group" #### ⏱️ [16:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=1005) — [H1] Half of Voting Members Are Absent - Key idea: Governance concern about absentee voting members lacking context - Evidence: "about half of our voting members are never here... doesn't sit right with me" #### ⏱️ [20:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=1230) — [H3] Consensus-Based Decision Making Success - Key idea: CPC operates effectively by consensus rather than formal voting - Evidence: "I look forward to another year of absolutely no voting because we resolve everything successfully by consensus" #### ⏱️ [24:00](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=1440) — [H2] Combining Voting Member Tiers Proposal - Key idea: Simplify by combining non-impact and regular voting member categories - Evidence: "combine the non-impact and regular voting tiers to just be like non-impact voting members" #### ⏱️ [28:15](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=1695) — [H3] Collaboration Spaces Representation Need - Key idea: Working groups doing good work should have more representation - Evidence: "collab spaces that are doing really good work... would be good to also have like some representation" #### ⏱️ [32:45](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=1965) — [H2] Impact Projects Balance Concerns - Key idea: Large projects worry about smaller projects having disproportionate voting power - Evidence: "impact projects get a little bit angsty when they feel like the balance of votes would suddenly be broadly in favor of smaller projects" #### ⏱️ [38:20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=2300) — [H1] Onboarding Issues Repository Overflow - Key idea: CPC repository overwhelmed with project onboarding tracking issues - Evidence: "if it's not on the first page, it doesn't exist. And so I think things were getting lost on CPC issues" #### ⏱️ [42:10](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=2530) — [H2] Project Board Value for Tracking - Key idea: Current project board system provides valuable visibility into onboarding progress - Evidence: "having separate issues is the right way to go... we have a project board that makes it really easy to see the status" #### ⏱️ [45:30](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2qA3G0yY9Yw?t=2730) — [H3] Charter Approval Backlog Problem - Key idea: Four unaligned charters represent ongoing visibility and process issues - Evidence: "we have like four charters that are not approved and that is part of like this visibility problem" ## 📚 References - [OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council) - [OpenJS Foundation Website](https://openjsf.org/) - [CPC Charter Documents](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/tree/main/PROJECT_PROGRESSION.md) ## 🗣️ Paraphrase - The OpenJS Foundation is reforming its governance structure by simplifying the confusing multi-tier voting system and switching impact project representation from elections to appointments - Half of the voting members don't regularly attend meetings, creating a governance challenge where decisions may be made without proper representation, though consensus-based decision making helps mitigate this - The project onboarding process generates too many tracking issues in the main repository, making it difficult to find relevant CPC business, so they're moving to a separate tracking system ## 📰 Newsletter The OpenJS Foundation Cross Project Council is streamlining governance! They've elected new voting representatives and are proposing major reforms to simplify the complex election system. The key changes include appointing rather than electing impact project representatives (similar to board members) and combining voting member tiers to reduce confusion. The council also tackled a practical challenge: project onboarding creates 20+ tracking issues that clutter the main repository. They're moving these to a dedicated space while maintaining visibility through project boards. These changes reflect a mature organization optimizing for effectiveness over rigid process. The emphasis on consensus-based decision making and practical workflow improvements shows how successful open source foundations evolve their governance. Resources: [OpenJS Foundation](https://openjsf.org/), [Cross Project Council](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council), [Project Progression](https://github.com/openjs-foundation/cross-project-council/blob/main/PROJECT_PROGRESSION.md) ## ✅ Action Items #### OSPO - Policy & Governance: Draft PR for simplified election documentation combining impact/regular voting tiers - Community Engagement: Design quarterly project presentation format to increase CPC engagement - Strategic Alignment: Establish regular onboarding status reporting cadence for CPC visibility #### Community - Maintainers: Survey impact projects on engagement preferences and barriers to participation - Contributors: Create mentorship pathways for newer contributors to participate in governance - Ecosystem: Move onboarding tracking issues to separate repository while maintaining project board visibility #### FAIR - Governance artifacts: Update charter documentation to reflect streamlined voting procedures - Policies: Establish attendance requirements for active voting membership status ## 🧪 Hypotheses - Simplifying the voting member tier system will reduce operational confusion and increase participation in CPC governance - Moving project onboarding tracking to a separate repository will improve CPC repository navigability without losing oversight - Regular project presentations to the CPC will improve engagement more effectively than relying on annual election cycles - Appointment-based impact project representation will reduce administrative overhead while maintaining effective representation ### 📊 Methodology - Survey analysis of past two years of voting member applications to determine optimal seat allocation - Comparison study of attendance patterns between different voting member categories - Workflow analysis of onboarding issue management across different repository structures ### ❓ Questions - How can the foundation better engage projects that have sufficient technical capacity but limited governance participation interest? - What metrics should be used to evaluate the effectiveness of consensus-based decision making versus formal voting procedures? - How might expanding collaboration space representation affect the balance of power between large impact projects and smaller initiatives? ### 🔮 Future Research - Best practices analysis from other foundations managing multi-project governance structures - Investigation into automated project health monitoring to complement human engagement efforts - Development of governance participation incentive models for open source maintainers ### 💡 Implications - Practice: Foundation staff will need to implement new repository structures and update documentation workflows - Policy: Charter changes required to formalize the simplified voting structure and appointment processes - Education: Projects will need guidance on the new governance structure and participation expectations - Funding: Streamlined processes may reduce administrative costs and improve resource allocation to actual project work ### 🧠 Learning Styles Assessment Reading level estimate: 12th grade #### 👀 Visual learners - Present: Meeting structure with clear agenda progression - Improve: Governance structure diagrams, voting process flowcharts, organizational hierarchy visuals #### 🔊 Aural learners - Present: Full video recording with natural discussion flow - Improve: 5-minute audio summary of key decisions, structured talking points #### 🗣️ Verbal learners - Present: Rich discussion with examples, analogies to board governance - Improve: Glossary of foundation-specific terms, comparison tables of old vs new structures #### 🧩 Kinesthetic learners - Present: Action items with specific next steps - Improve: Interactive governance workflow demos, hands-on repository navigation exercises #### 🧠 Logical learners - Present: Clear problem-solution structure, cause-effect reasoning - Improve: Decision matrices for governance options, quantified attendance metrics #### 🧑‍🤝‍🧑 Social learners - Present: Collaborative discussion format, multiple perspectives - Improve: Working group integration plans, community feedback mechanisms #### 🧘‍♀️ Solitary learners - Present: Detailed meeting notes for individual review - Improve: Self-assessment tools for governance participation, individual project onboarding checklists #### 🌿 Naturalistic learners - Present: Organic discussion evolution, adaptation to practical constraints - Improve: Ecosystem health metaphors, sustainable governance practice frameworks ### 📊 Accessibility Assessment #### Screen reader semantics - Present: Clear video title and description - Improve: Structured transcript with speaker identification, heading hierarchy #### Keyboard navigation - Present: Standard video player controls - Improve: Timestamped chapter navigation, skip-to-content options #### Contrast and readability - Present: Good video quality for visual participants - Improve: High-contrast transcript formatting, adjustable text sizing #### Text resizing and reflow - Present: Responsive video player - Improve: Reflowable transcript layout, scalable meeting note formats #### Media and captions - Present: Full transcript available - Improve: Synchronized captions, downloadable transcript files #### Forms and interactions - Present: Basic video interaction - Improve: Accessible meeting feedback forms, inclusive participation options #### Standards reference - Video content would benefit from WCAG 2.2 AA compliant transcript presentation ### 🌍 DEIB Assessment #### Cultural breadth - Present: International foundation context, global project participation - Improve: Time zone consideration documentation, multi-region governance examples #### Inclusive language - Present: Professional, respectful discussion tone - Improve: Define foundation-specific jargon, avoid governance insider terms #### Neurodiversity support - Present: Structured meeting format, clear agenda progression - Improve: Meeting preparation materials, consistent discussion frameworks #### Representation - Present: Diverse project maintainer participation - Improve: Balanced speaking time analysis, inclusive decision-making processes #### Psychological safety - Present: Respectful disagreement, collaborative problem-solving - Improve: Explicit community guidelines reference, conflict resolution pathways ### ✅ Logical Validity #### Strong reasoning - Deductive strength: If voting members don't attend, they can't effectively represent projects → Half of voting members are absent → Current representation is ineffective - Inductive strength: Past elections show minimal change in impact representatives → Annual elections don't serve their intended purpose - Causal reasoning: Complex tier system causes confusion → Simplification will improve participation - Analogical strength: Board member appointment model works well → Similar model should work for impact project representatives #### Fallacies - Appeal to practicality: "practically speaking it doesn't change yearly" - while true, dismisses potential benefits of regular review cycles - False dichotomy: Presenting appointment vs election as only options, without exploring hybrid approaches #### Tone of voice - Overall tone: Collaborative and solution-focused, with respectful handling of disagreements and practical constraints ### 🛡️ DARVO <!-- deep-read:sections end -->