Placeholder Image

字幕列表 影片播放

  • Hi, everybody.

  • How are you all doing today?

  • Jump up and down a few things.

  • Stretch a little bit.

  • High-five the person to your right because you can.

  • My name is Adam Miller.

  • This is OpenJS.

  • This is between you and me, we won't tell the panellists, how many people know what

  • the JS Foundations do, and interact with them a lot and should be up here on this panel?

  • I see a few hands.

  • Who knows that the foundations exist and kind of know what they do but really ... couldn't

  • give a talk on it or be on the panel here.

  • Here is, ""We're talking about foundations?

  • We're talking about open source, right, why is there a foundation involved?""

  • We've done a lot of work recent to merge together the Node Foundation, and the JavaScript Foundation

  • into the OpenJS Foundation.

  • It's been a ten-month process or more.

  • We are really excited to share with you what we've been doing.

  • There's an awesome panel of people here who are have been rocking it on the foundation

  • formation side, and I guess we will about down the line and do intros here.

  • >> You have a standalone full-screen experience from looks like any other app on the iPhone.

  • So it's basically a PWA.

  • Then you have - feature phones, I have this Nokia here with me, feature phones, non-touch,

  • they're supporting PWAs.

  • But it's not just on mobile.

  • On desktop you can go and install Trivago, Tinder, by the way, and you have a - that

  • works on Windows, Chromebook, Mac and Linux.

  • You can open more PWAs at the same time.

  • We have the properly, we just need to create really, really good experiences, and today,

  • let's say that I can say that maybe half of the PWA s out there on R offering a good experience.

  • The other half are away for offering a competition like the native apps, and so we will try to

  • see why, and what we can do today to improve that experience.

  • So, talking about the app cycle, okay?

  • So because we are creating apps, not just websites that will appear in the browser.

  • So, when you open a PWA, so if the d Platform.

  • I'm Google's representative as a platinum member board representative and the vice-chair

  • of the Open JS Foundation.

  • Before that, I was the elected representative on the board prior to the merger in the original

  • structure of the node.js Foundation.

  • There were three board seats that are community members.

  • Tracy had one of them, and I was representing the other group.

  • >> I'm Adam Miller.

  • In the daytime, I work on LinkedIn.

  • We can't talk to the future of the organisation without looking to the past.

  • I would like to get a tl;dr on the node Node Foundation and the JavaScript Foundation.

  • >> So a the although of people may not realise that the JavaScript community has had a foundation

  • working on behalf of open-source projects for a long time.

  • Back in the mid-2000s, we had the jQuery project that got wildly popular and we made a foundation

  • for jQuery that added projects over time which later merged with what was the Dojo Foundation

  • which had a handful of projects itself and just kind of that was about three or four

  • years ago, and so that was when we became the JS Foundation, and we've been rocking

  • along behind the scenes for quite some time.

  • >> And the Node JS Foundation was formed in 2015 to provide a future place where a number

  • of different groups within the node community could come together and work on figuring out

  • how to move things forward into the future.

  • There was a few sort of key things that were important, which I think we will see flow

  • through so what we see in the OpenJS Foundation as well as that neutrality, if they contribute,

  • they have the tools and the access that they need to make things happen.

  • That is something we will see reflected in what we talk about in the OpenJS Foundation

  • as well.

  • In September 15, we - we've seen consistent and reliable releases

  • ever since then.

  • I think it's a good sign of the stability and the ability for everybody to get in in

  • work together on that front.

  • >> Yes, I know early on when it was just in early discussions about the two foundations

  • merging, there was a good bit of uncertainty about whether it should happen, whether it

  • was the right time to do it.

  • I know a lot of you feel that a lot of those concerns early on, I was hoping you could

  • answer maybe why not, and why merge?

  • >> Can you repeat that one more time really quickly?

  • >> Why are we merging now and why - what is the reason for the merge?

  • >> It's been a long couple of days!

  • So there are a number of different reasons to consider merging foundations.

  • If you go and look at the bylaws of the foundation itself, right in there, we claim that we want

  • to be a centre of gravity for the JavaScript ecosystem.

  • Prior to there being one primary foundation, it wasn't really clear.

  • And it's hard because Node was the main project in the node.js Foundation, and joining something

  • bigger means giving some stuff up, and there's an anecdote I really like.

  • When I kind of started getting into the node.js ecosystem, when I had just moved to California,

  • I got - I got a free ticket to go to a conference called Node Summit.

  • This was right around the time of the fork, and they were talking about merging, and I

  • have no shame, so I walked right up to Scott Hammond at the time the CEO of Joyant and

  • asked him why would you put Node?

  • A foundation - in a foundation?

  • He said it's better to have a smaller piece of a bigger pie.

  • To me, when I think about these foundations, and we just had our summit recently which

  • was fantastic, and so many new faces in the room that weren't there before, we just massively

  • expanded the scope of the work that we can do, who we can work with, how we can work

  • with them.

  • We get to revisit all of these kind of preconceived notions when Node first went in the foundation,

  • it was very reactive.

  • We had things that we needed to protect and fix and now we can be proactive and start

  • thinking about what we want to build.

  • >> It made me think we all know we can accomplish a lot more than we could on our own as an

  • individual, so it's the same thing for a larger foundation.

  • >> And sort of wearing the Node hat, there was a lot of scepticism when we were talking

  • about a merger.

  • And not - I wouldn't necessarily say it was balanced.

  • There was a lot from the Node side, and, again, it was because we had experience going through

  • I think a pretty tumultuous foundation formation not too many years ago, and Node was finally

  • feeling like a stable place sort of firing on all cylinders, we were working together

  • in the community, and the TSC, but I think as part of that, we ended up seeing how bringing

  • in the up stream components in the JS ecosystem, that, like, we were stronger when we were

  • doing that together, and so by focusing on these sorts of things that we had already

  • learned, transparency, including not - not just including - giving autonomy to the project

  • members so they could run and host these meetings, we ran weekly meetings when it came to the

  • merger discussion and planning so whatever wanted to drive the planning from particular

  • initiative phases of making this merger happen, it was only going to happen if people showed

  • up and did the work, and that is from the project side, not from the board side.

  • >> Yes, I will add that on the .just Foundation side, we immediately you a the benefit of

  • possibly merging with the Node ecosystem because all of our projects really rely on Node.

  • At the same time, there was fear and uncertainty because there was a lot of historical drama,

  • and energy from the community which may be disruptive to what was otherwise fairly stability

  • projects.

  • So, you know, with that optimism, but cautious optimism in mind, everybody got really excited

  • about the possibility of collaborating more closely with their peers on the Node side

  • through one umbrella, and I think that's kind of what put us over the edge.

  • >> And one of the things that building on what both Tracy and Jory was saying, from

  • the get-go, we approached this from an egalitarian mind set.

  • We made the doors open, like we tried to be hyper inclusive as much as possible.

  • If you are a member or a committer, and even then we weren't that picky, like, if you wanted

  • to show up to those meetings and you wasn't being disruptive, you had a voice and a seat

  • at the table, and were participating.

  • I think that was really important to make sure that this could be successful.

  • >> I was going to say, we looked at the governance for a number of the different projects, for

  • the Node Foundation, Kubernetes, and I'm happy that we ended up with something that is the

  • most, has the most opportunity, and hopefully the best place where people will want to come

  • and will attract a lot of good people through that.

  • I'm happy by looking at that, we ended up with that open and really nice governance.

  • >> I think in all of this drives home the value of this work is always project-driven,

  • and that's the point of the foundation, is to help empower and give autonomy to the projects,

  • and get sort of the crap out of the way for them to be able to do their good work.

  • >> I think what I've heard on that front is we talk about great projects and the focus

  • will be on those great projects, not the foundation itself.

  • >> So let's dig into some of that nitty-gritty.

  • Almost everybody in the room here is an engineer, and I have always held the opinion that governance

  • is just coding but with words!

  • It's really what it has felt like over the past ten months, and we have a visual aid

  • here as we talk about it.

  • Let's dive into some of the more nitty-gritty details here of under the hood of what is

  • kind of making this foundation, new foundation tick, and we can talk about some of the back

  • story, and reasoning behind these sections of the foundation.

  • Yes, so, I mean, let's take it from the top and go OpenJS board and talk about their functionality.

  • >> To start out with, I talked about the governance.

  • We have multiple levels so there are observers.

  • Any who wants to can come up and participate in the meetings.

  • We want to get as many different ideas to come to the best answers.

  • We have regular members who can actually, people who in my mind who said I'm making

  • a commitment to be involved regularly and they can they can be recognised for that.

  • Again, both observers and regular members are involved in all of the work that goes

  • on.

  • And then finally, we have voting members where in the rare cases where we need to actually

  • have a vote on something, it's that subset who will do that vote.

  • Now, our experience in the Node project at least has been that votes are very rare, we

  • follow a consensus-seeking approach, and really it's going to be all of those members who

  • have ownership and who push things forward, and so it should not really matter which level

  • you're in, but we have just to have the different levels for the contingencies.

  • >> One thing that I can add, a mantra I would tell myself, was that we wanted to create

  • structures and hierarchies of responsibility rather than power.

  • So there isn't fundamentally a major power balance between any of the members of the

  • any of the projects, being a voting member just means you're more responsible.

  • You need to be showing up.

  • You need to make sure that things are getting finished but you just don't get to shut down

  • another person's voice because you have that responsibility.

  • >> The governance is really written so that all the responsibilities of the CPC are the

  • responsibilities of all the members as opposed to anybody in particular.

  • >> I want to talk a little bit about the projects if we can, the staging, because I think for

  • me, this was a big bringing all JS Foundation projects on board, and important they had

  • a voice in the project, and where they were going to derive value and get value and services

  • from the organisation, so we came up with this proposal that was loosely based on the

  • CNCF model of impact projects, growth-stage projects, and what is not pictured here is

  • there a project which we have six projects that we deemed, and the projects themselves

  • opted into this stage, functionally complete.

  • We recognised and thanked them for their contribution they made to the comment but we're not really

  • encouraging people to go and contribute to those projects or adopt those projects now.

  • We have five impact projects which are sort of the projects that are a real kind of need

  • to have some resources and support on a very active basis from the foundation.

  • They're used heavily in enterprise, and they need that backing.

  • We have six growth projects and that stage is for projects that have a specific objective

  • in mind, like there is a goal.

  • I need, I want to grow my contributor base.

  • I want to increase the number of implementations.

  • I want to put on an Yvette, or something like that.

  • They have some specific goal for which they need extra resources from the foundation for

  • a short period of time, growth stages for those projects, and then we have 15 projects

  • that are projects that are fine, they're kind of doing their thing, their resource needs

  • are pretty set, and we don't have to do too much to support that.

  • >> One thing I can add from the At Large is the Node Foundation, that was the only project.

  • That was half true.

  • It had attempted an incubation programme to bring for projects in.

  • I personally, and I can't speak for how other people feel, I don't feel that programme was

  • successful.

  • While we were merging, we have to make sure that all projects are accounted for, and both

  • ... and Express primarily wanted to continue operating the way that they were, to be able

  • to not to have anything day-to-day change, and perhaps have a bit of a better idea of

  • what resources were available to them such as CI, or legal counsel, or PR and marketing

  • in case they needed it, but they mostly didn't want anything to change.

  • By coming in as an At Large projects, these two projects mostly on rails doing their own

  • thing, as far as I know, and I'm saying this because we haven't heard anything from them,

  • it seems like everything's going fine, and there's been pretty much no change day-to-day,

  • and so to me, I see a lot of these projects as you do your thing the way you want to do

  • your thing, and we are here to support you when you need it, and one of the really big

  • things I think we will want to be doing in the near future is codefying and making it

  • far clearer what resources are available, how to get access to those resources, and

  • how to create programmes for new resources if they're not available yet.

  • >> I think we're better set up now to deal with and cope with the different requirements

  • or aspirations that each project will have as opposed to being part of the node.js Foundation

  • where you're a small part of a bigger project.

  • >> Do you want to talk about the membership structure and how representation works at

  • the layer above the CPC?

  • >> Sorry, can you repeat that?

  • >> Do - I would love to hear more about the membership structure and how the CPC interacts

  • with the rest of the org a little bit.

  • >> I think, Adam, let me know, you're asking about how is the CPC formed and what is the

  • structure of the foundation on the community side?

  • >> Yes.

  • >> I will start.

  • One thing that is really important, and this is the only thing I really wanted to say,

  • is that the board which we are seeing over on the left-hand side, which is made up of

  • a number of different members from corporate entities, as well as as well as three three

  • community members right now, it is three, it will go down to two soon, there is governance

  • - grab me, I will explain - but that group is responsible for the things that you see

  • listed there.

  • They do not have authority over anything else.

  • The rest of the day-to-day operations of the foundation that you see under the Cross Project

  • Council As well as the technical governance of project is completely air gapped.

  • The boards and projects can work together on things.

  • It doesn't mean that we are not partners.