 Sure, thanks Todd. So what we have today is Action Item Review and Workgroup Updates and probably the most important thing that we have on tap is an update Todd on the election for the TSC and so we can go through and make sure everybody is familiar with the whole process. So we have the hack creation for next week. I think there's an agenda building right in Google Doc. We need to maybe talk about that a little bit. And then the release tax on me, I apologize I haven't had a chance to get to it. I don't know that Brian has either. I don't know if Brian is on now or not but I need to either cologne. Election update and then review Bawa's proposal for the Python SDK for the Hyperledger Fabric. And then Workgroup Updates. Is there anything else people need or rather would like to discuss? All right, very none Todd. So we have the thanks for posting that link to the agenda. I don't know if you want to open that just so we can all see what's currently there. All right, is everyone able to get into that doc? All right, looks like a bunch are going in there. Great. So I think a few things. One, we started talking a little bit about agenda topics last week which got added into there. If anyone has any other suggestions, please feel free to add it directly to the doc or let us know. From a scheduling standpoint, I have a note out to the different workgroup leads that may be interested in, you know, hosting an hour to three hour session during those two days. Again, this is completely virtual. We can run it through either go to meeting Webex. If people need a Webex setup, I'm happy to get that done or through Slack, mailing list, etc. So once we get some information back from the workgroups, some of it may have come in overnight. I will get some time slots added into there with dial in info, etc. The one thing I'm inclined to do just want to see if it makes sense for the group. But like the TSC call we have on Thursday, thinking about for the Wednesday having a kickoff call, sort of same time frame, maybe 7 to 8 a.m. Pacific, 10 to 11 Eastern, just to set the tone and get people off and running on the projects. If that works for the group, let me know and I'll get that scheduled. So Todd, there was one thing we did talk about last week and that was putting together maybe a two hour deep dive on the white paper. Yep, so I connected with, go ahead, sorry. Okay, sorry, go ahead. Yeah, so I connected with Dave and we're going to get that scheduled for the 24th. We're going to get a doodle pull out. So that'll be coming out shortly. But yeah, that's underway. Okay, we'll make sure we didn't talk about that. Okay, thanks. Yep. And for any of the workgroup leads, if you're on the call, I sent out an email, but for the virtual hack fest, please let me know if there's a time slot you're interested in holding a session for your workgroup during this. I can help get a Webex set up if that's helpful. Brom, I know you got a doodle pull out. I saw that on the architecture workgroup slack channel, so that's great. But yeah, so if anyone has any other agenda topics or items they'd like to see happen during those two days, this is a good time to let us know. Yeah, so one of the things that I wanted to add was, you know, one of the things that I think we need to work on collectively, and this is, you know, across fabric and sawtooth and anything else that we end up doing here, and that is, you know, where's the front door? How do I find things? They're all over the place. We keep moving them around. That's obviously, you know, par for the course. But I think it's important that we try and sort of take a step back for a moment and just think about it. So, you know, if somebody Googles Hyperledger, where are they ending up? You know, where do we want them to end up? Right? Where do we want them? If they do Google Hyperledger, what do we want them to find and so forth? And then, you know, from there, can they navigate? Can they find the sawtooth lake docks? Can they find the fabric docks? Can they find the repositories? Can they, you know, can they find out where they can start, you know, playing and so forth? And so I think it might be worthwhile, you know, to just sort of have a feeling during the hackathon on, you know, just pulling in feedback on, you know, things like where things are and where they should be or where we're not highlighting documentation, what's difficult to find, all those kinds of things and then starting to think about how we can continuously and gradually improve that. Great. Sounds good. We've got that added. Thoughts from anyone else on the call? I recently just got interested in Hackathon and Hyperledger and I have had an experience trying to feel my way out through the documentation and get the project running on my machine. I found the slack channels to be really helpful, specifically for fabric, was what I got started out with. Thank you. Chris, any other thoughts from you or Brian, if you're on? No, I think this is good. I mean, you know, we might want to have, if we can, you know, while people are on additional conversation about, you know, how we communicate and so forth, you know, that's something that Brian's continuing to push forward. And I don't know, Todd, where we stand with discourse and all those other things, the ideas that were kicked around? Yeah, you know, it's a bit two-part and Brian can chime in as well. The Linux Foundation is evaluating a variety of options just because similar projects are in a similar situation to us with communication tools. So we're trying to find some streamlined options, so we're not using, you know, a dozen different tools and also trying to avoid some of the, you know, caps that we reached like on Slack with the 10,000 message limit. So that's on the one side of it. On the other side of it is Brian kicked off a thread with the Hyperledger technical community trying to, you know, hear from the community what tools they find the most valuable, what other alternatives could exist that we may want to consider. And we're going to kind of work from both sides of it and hopefully come to a good solution in the next couple weeks here that we can officially move to and simplify some of these efforts. Yeah, this is Brian. I have asked for a Confluence Wiki to be set up, although I did see concerns about it not being, if Sean's concerns that it's not being, you know, Markdown Friendly Wiki. So I'm certainly happy to continue the conversation. I think the Hyperledger discuss mailing list is the place I'd like to drive some of this conversation since it does affect the whole of the community. But let's get Confluence set up. Let's get some experience with it. If it's not what we like and we do want to consider alternatives, we can still move forward with that. And the other two alternatives, one for mailing list with discourse, I think we just need to get an example discourse set up and start putting the tires on that for finding another one that we can go cohabitate. But I think we should probably be tracking that as an ongoing agenda topic for this call just so that we, you know, can be making way to the progress against this if it is so critical to our community. So let's do that coming forward. But I'm making progress. Great. I'll add that as an ongoing action. Okay. All right. Well, if nothing else for the virtual hack fest next week, I will get an intro call schedule, a welcome call or kickoff call, whatever you want to call it scheduled for 10 a.m. Eastern on Wednesday, the 24th. And I will continue to work with the workgroup leads on getting any of their meetings set up if they need WebEx for that and slot it in. And then we can continue to build out this agenda over the next couple of days. Cool. Thank you. Will you be sending around the WebEx link through the mailing list? Yeah, I can send that to the TSC mailing list and I can also post it to the Slack channel as well. Perfect. Thank you. And also for the hack fest agenda that I paced it into the go to meeting, we'll drop it in there all the call in details too. Next up is, do we have an update on the Amsterdam or is that? So it's still pending. The dates are confirmed. We're just ironing out a few details with ABN Amro, Holland Fintech and IBM Netherlands just before we can get the registration up and running. But the Hyperledger hack fest will be October 3rd and 4th. Those dates are confirmed. They'll also be running a more competition style hackathon the weekend before August 1st and 2nd. And we hope to have a registration site up very soon here. Cool. Let me know October 1st and 2nd. I take it. Sorry, I misspoke. Yes. Thank you. Brian, I don't know if you've had a chance to look at the semverse stuff. I apologize, but I haven't had a chance to either. TSC election update, Todd. Yes. So really happy to see we had a lot of activity from the group of 144 people that were eligible to nominate themselves. We have seen 24 nominations come in for that. Really diverse group of people. So that's a really positive sign of strong community activity. The window, the way we had it set up was the window was to close at 9 p.m. Pacific last night. And today would kick off the voting process. So just want to confirm with the TSC that they are indeed ready to move forward with that. What that would look like is we would send the 24 nominees all their information that they provided, their bio, their pitch statement, etc., out to the 144 people that are eligible to vote in this election. It'll come through the come to our set method of voting basically where you rank the different nominees in that process. Everyone will get one individual ballot to their email address. We'll leave voting open for one week. That would close, is scheduled to close on next Wednesday at 9 p.m. Pacific, at which point we would then read out the results in the TSC meeting next Thursday. So just want to check with the TSC, call for any objections to continue on and start the election with these 24 nominees right after this call here. No objections from me, go for it. So no objections? Hearing none, Todd, I think the answer is yes. Excellent. We'll get ballots out to everyone and as well as the slate of nominees shortly after this call. Excellent, thank you. And then finally we have Vawa's proposal. So Vawa gave a review of the proposal. Hopefully people have had a chance rather to review and comment on the link. I don't know, Todd, can you post that link into the chat so that everybody can... And is Vawa on the call? Yes. Yes, I'm here. So comments, thoughts, concerns. Does this have an independent roadmap? I mean like an independent release schedule is something that really just separately from fabric, just when I'm asking or is this kind of a shim to fabric? Yeah, so Vawa developed this independent of the fabric development team inside IBM. So it's independent from that perspective. The reason why it needs to be necessarily independent, but it's going to be incubating and we'll have to see if there's enough interest and enough maturity and how the project goes forward to figure out whether we actually make it a formal part of the fabric. I mean that's what the incubation process is really all about, right? So I think the one point though to this is we probably want to make sure that when we do a release of the SDK, the Python SDK that it matches one of the releases, I guess that's your concern, right? Chris, one question. Last week you raised an important point that this seems to be based on the REST API, which is getting deprecated. So has the proposal been modified to not based on the REST SDK or REST API? Vawa? Yeah, since compared with the initial version, there are some, actually there are some changes. Mainly I added the plan of implementing the SDK using JRBC, that's the main change. I hate this chat. It's really bad. So the one comment that I see in the chat is Kelly's highlighting that the name, and actually I agree with this, the name shouldn't be Hyperledger Pi, but it should be Faber Pi. Oh yeah, that makes sense. I guess part of my question as well was whether this is something that exists as an independent effort within Hyperledger, in which case, having a pool of developers, having a, it's not kind of release strain and it's not kind of freedom to try to pull it through kind of the thinking versus a more experimental sub-component of fabric. And there's gray area between the two, but it tends more towards the latter than maybe something that sits as a part of the fabric tree and the fabric project rather than being a sound independent project. But certainly, I think it's a matter of who shows up as other developers, and I think we might need to do some recruiting before accepting this as a proposal just because it's, you know, to have an independent project with one developer is a challenge. So I guess part of the related question is how much critical math of other developers do we want to see before accepting a project proposal into the incubator, right? Certainly by the time it graduates the incubator it should be showing ahead of steam with the community. Well, I mean, so I mean, there's different ways I suppose you could do this, you could have something that's external and wait until it gets ahead of steam and then bring it in for incubation or you can bring something in for incubation and if it doesn't catch on you can, you know, you can either put it, you know, into the attic, so to speak, or you can, you know, suggest that they, you know, just find a different home if they'd like to keep it going. Yeah, I think it's a matter of preferences and tastes. I mean, if we were, we could accept this this week or if we were to, for other reasons wait, it may make sense to do a call out to some of the other lists and say, you know, if anyone is interested in Python and is willing to put their name against this, but it doesn't mean it's a full-time job, but it means you're committing to tracking this project and helping it along. You know, I think that would make the proposal stronger. This is Mike. I got one question on this as well, which I think is also related to some of the things Brian's talking about with, with kind of the magnitude and scope. Is the, so we've been talking about the Hyperledger Explorer and there needs to be an API that's exported from the ledger in order to support from the explorers. Is this Python application one that would also drive and put into what that API would look like? Again, to me it becomes a much more useful tool if it's something that's giving us yet another data point on coming up with the chronicle interfaces that we're looking for. Well, so make that, I mean, I agree if we had a, you know, an SDK that could, you know, span multiple back ends, that would be cool. You know, share a common interface and so forth, but I don't think we're there. I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I think it's a great idea, but I just don't know, you know, this is necessarily the vehicle that would get us there. I mean, so far in the Explorer, we were thinking of using the Node.js SDK. If this was to be based on a Python web application, then yes, Python SDK would be helpful. Yeah, but Node is a little bit more natural in the context of Explorer. So that's why we were leaning towards the Node SDK already, and it's already available. I personally have no problem with the Node SDK. I've been using it extensively, but I just this morning I was having a conversation with someone who was looking for Java support, so I welcome the diversity in language options. Python wasn't specifically requested, but I'm sure there's plenty of people that wouldn't want to use it. Well, do people need more time to think about this, or you know, should we be suggesting to Bawa that maybe he go back and see if he can't drum up some additional support? Let's give it another week. Bawa, if you don't mind taking it to the broader community discussion forum, and you can find a few others to put their names against it, that would be my recommendation. That's the only thing I've seen from this, and then maybe a bit of naming discussion as well, kind of having on the side channel on chat on this call. I'll just throw this out there. I mean, I've seen other projects. I think Zero of Q was the one I was looking at recently, where they have a fairly diverse set of SDK kind of options to use, and maybe the three of them are officially supported, and then there's like 15 of them that are they rope under the community supported kind of thing. So if people's concerns are more around whether there's enough critical mass behind support, there's always the kind of that route as an option. You could say, you know, hey, someone's working on Python. It might not be officially blessed, but we have this community thing. That's actually a really good idea. You know, if I think about Cloud Foundry has that, OpenStack has that, you know, a lot of projects that have formal governance have something that's sort of affiliated, but it's not formally covered by the project. But it gives a certain amount of elbow rubbing opportunity for people to put things, and they get a little bit more visibility because they're, you know, sort of attendant to what's going on, but it's not formally governed by or anything. And then, you know, I guess that provides a means for projects to demonstrate their, you know, their interest, you know, level from the community, and then they can seek to be incubated formally as part of, in our case, hyperledger. I don't know, Brian, what do you think? I'm sorry, just missed the suggestion. Well, the suggestion, I guess, might be, you know, maybe we have something like hyperledger-community as an org that can serve as a home for wayward children and want to be projects, and so forth, useful utilities and tools that aren't formally part of our governance and, you know, the project and release structures, but might be general, you know, general utility, you know, there's a number of things out there, you know, like alternate Docker images that are, you know, using, you know, not Ubuntu, but, you know, Alpine or, you know, that are, you know, trying to squeeze things down a bit further and so forth, but, you know, given an opportunity for people to sort of bring a lot of that stuff together so that people can easily find those things as opposed to having to search GitHub. Okay, so kind of like Jakarta Commons. Yeah, yeah. I think that makes sense, but you still need a responsible community for that body of code and the risk of a lot of stuff that doesn't have people kind of actively aware what it is and able to, EG, respond to security issues that come up, that sort of thing, you know, is a concern. So I think, I think they were probably too young as a project yet to have a catch-all kind of MISC kind of category, you know, as a basis, but let's do this for real. I think there's been enough interest out there in a Python front-end to fabric that we won't have a challenge of pulling people in with a little bit of marketing. And I'd rather pursue this as a standard project for a time being, but not opposed. And I think what makes that just a final thought on that is, I think what makes most sense is if one of the existing projects such as Fabric says within our repo will have a contrib or a MISC branch, you know, a sub-directory branch, whatever, so there's still a responsible community attached to it. It's just, it doesn't, it sits there as a, you know, as a lower criticality body of the code in the rest of the repo. But I think this deserves its own repo. I think it deserves its own community. I just want to see a, put in another week, and if we come here a week later, and there's not more names, we might still accept it. I just, let's do what we can do. I think that's reasonable. All right, so we'll give it one more week. So, Vawa, if you can sort of socialize it and see if you can't get some friends to say, hey, I'll help. I think that'd be good. Okay, next up is workgroup updates. Oleg, are you on? So, I don't think Oleg can make it, but he sent an email update to me, so I'll just do a quick readout of that. The couple things were, he said that they switched to the mailing list and bi-weekly calls. They recently discussed the requirements beyond just fabric. They're switching the focus to the main requirements document. Oleg has been working on the collateral debt swaps use case. And then lastly, Oleg's preparing a draft of privacy requirements for the architecture workgroup. Any questions? Well, I'll do my best. We'll just read stuff into the email. Ron, are you on? Yes, I am. So, we've been making good progress on the architecture workgroup. Just remind everybody what we're doing is to go through and decompose the different functions into layers and modules and focus on the high-level functional description of each module or layer, focusing more on the what and not the how, as well as defining interfaces for each of those modules, trying to put together a functional decomposition of the long-term architecture that we hope that the projects would evolve towards. With that in mind, we have kind of split into two tracks. We finished the first iteration of defining the smart contract layer and the consensus layer and the interface between them. And the one track that we are street office just working on an architecture doc, at least fleshing out these two layers and the interfaces that we've already kind of started working on. And this is just the first iteration. As we kind of look through the details, we are identifying open issues that are funding for the next iteration, but we want to capture what we've already kind of achieved consensus on among the working group. And there's a link posted on the Slack channel. If anyone is interested, please go and participate. It's still an early draft stage, but we are making good progress on that track. The second track, we are continuing working on kind of identifying and looking at the security and privacy requirements and request out to Oleg to kind of continue a current dump on the requirements that have been generated out of the current list of use cases, as well as, of course, most of the folks have been working on the projects where they already have a good set of requirements in mind. So we're using that as a starting point to push out the security and privacy-related functions. Most of the focus has been on what we're calling identity services and policy services, and there will also be tie-ins back to the other layers that we have already kind of talked about. So we're making good progress. There, it's still early days, so we're talking more about requirements, good strap, and route of trust, and identity services for system entities, registration, enrollment, authorization, and so forth. If you're interested, we are planning to have two sessions again on the two tracks during the virtual hack fest. There's a do-do call-out, and there's working documents on the architecture document, and the notes, the meeting notes document on Google Docs has the ongoing meeting notes that we are looking on the main general sessions. Any questions? Sounds good. Thanks, Ron. And next up is Dave, and just I will give you a heads-up, Dave. I've been going through and commenting in the margins in a copy of the white paper, so I owe you that, but I'm about a third of the way through so far, so I've got a little bit more. Okay, great. Thanks, Chris. Yeah, so we didn't get a chance to meet yesterday. Unfortunately, I got called away to far drill immediately before our scheduled meeting, but the big news right now, of course, is that we are, as we discussed a little bit earlier, going to be holding a virtual walk-through, and as Todd pointed out, we're aiming for the 24th, and essentially, we're sort of envisioning a go-to-meeting sort of thing, just like we have here. We'll be stepping through the sections. There'll be people who could talk through the phone or comment through chat similarly, and we'll be looking to get some feedback that way. We also did get some other feedback. Richard Brown again has provided us some pretty good feedback again, which was, we thank for that. Nothing through our formal channels, but I think people are expecting to, or hopefully, we'll have a good attendance and participation at the hackfest. Yeah, and then just one other thing, I know that, so Greg Wallace, who's our Linux Foundation person on marketing and stuff, he had mentioned that we're going to have a booth at Sybos in Geneva in late September. I'm curious if we felt that we would have a paper in the sort of published date, getting it out of draft. So, I guess, you know, what our goal would be is, depending on feedback and what we get out of the hackathon participation in this review, if people feel comfortable about that with the current state of it or with some minor modifications, our goal should be, you know, let's get it done, at least, you know, this is a living document, of course. Hyperledger is still a lot of different things going on, but as of the current state of our goals and what we're aiming for, I think we should be able to get this document to a point where we can remove the draft statement at least and make it available at the booth at Sybos in the end of September. So, you know, that's just a little more incentive for people to please take a look and with the goal of getting feedback in so that we can move this from, you know, draft to at least a published 1.0 version. And again, you know, we do expect it to evolve as Hyperledger itself evolves moving forward. Yeah, that's about it for me. Thanks, Dave. And yeah, I think actually getting a draft or a version of the white paper in ship shape for Sybos that we can hand out either on business cards or, you know, some sort of a flyer, I think that would be, that would be cool. Is Chris Allen on? Hearing none. Okay. And so CI from an update perspective, not much new from last week. We're up and running with Garrett and Jira on the fabric, certainly, and Jenkins and the last sort of cog in the wheel is to find home for the read the docs output that we can host after a build so that we get it, you know, continuously updated and reflecting the current build or a specific released version. And so I know that Rai has been working on trying to find us a home or, you know, a server that we can host this stuff from. Once we have that, I think we have all the various pieces in place. And I was just chatting in Slack earlier this morning that I'd like to then take that opportunity to actually set up a corner of the hyperledger.org website that we can do a better job than just pointing to GitHub about advertising the projects we have under incubation, where to find the documentation, where to find the code and so forth, so that we have an easier on ramp. And again, that's also aligned with the conversation we had earlier about the hackfest for next week. So that's basically it from a CI perspective. Any questions? But puts us at end of job and we've got 45 minutes left, but that gives 45 minutes for people to read the white paper and comment. And it gives people time to, you know, work on the release taxonomy and so forth. So I would suggest, unless there's any further discussion points that we adjourn. Yeah, exactly. Hashtag efficiency. Hashtag ye shorter meetings. Okay. Well, thanks everyone. And everybody keep an eye on your inbox for the, Alex is talking to me. Thanks everyone. And to keep an eye out for the incoming ballot and vote early and often, as they say. All right, take care. Bye-bye. Next time. Thanks guys. Bye.