 Floor is yours. Hello everyone welcome to the CSC call. As you, I'm sure all know we. This is a public meeting everybody is welcome to participate to, but you must live by the antitrust policy the notice of which is currently displayed. And the code of conduct which gives soul, behaving, or tries to at least. So, we actually have a couple of announcements to get us started. Of course we have the weekly developer newsletter. I don't know that more needs to be said about this. Oh, and Maria Teresa just joined so we're a full house, except for those who send regrets. Yeah, so the newsletter I don't think we need to say more, everybody should know about it by now. There are a couple of other announcements, we need to quickly cover. So, Bobby for is yours. Thank you can I share my screen. I guess that's possible. Okay, let's see if this works. Okay, so, thankfully, are now gave me the floor for a few minutes. The TSE is always interested in what's going on in the community, and this is one of the mentorship projects that the Linux foundation is sponsoring it's the one I'm working with with a great team of people. So I just wanted to spend five minutes and just let everybody know what's going on with it, because we are reaching across the community. And then we're just going to go over the project really quickly go over what the project is and talk about where the business teams and the technical teams are as of today. Again, we don't, we've already read the anti trust policy. We're working with the mentee heart of Gupta and matted body, and they are fabulous people to work with. We were doing a social impact blockchain project that we did two years ago. We build it through these checkpoints. Our first checkpoint was to define the problem we have three problems this season that we're handling on the project date is September 3. The second project are the giving chain Princeton where local farmers donate their produce and we drop it off at the food bank. The second project is India, Utakan, which is a local, or for heartache is a local flood region close to his home where he also is getting farmers and donations together, and he is going to deliver them to this flood ravaged area. And the third project is from Madhu who is also an India and she is addressing the humanitarian crisis facing women over there for hygiene products. So we're going to try to solve these three projects, or do these three projects simultaneously this time the first time we did it we only did the first one. Now we're going to try to do all three. Again, we selected the challenge. Again I just discussed them we're trying to track on a blockchain donations from the donor to the recipient. So that there is traceability. We talked about this so then the next point was the model valuation we had to find our like our users their pain points, and how we're going to work through that. We've done that and now we're working on the technical part which for that you get honed and Princeton will model the same version that we did two years ago. The India women project is a little different because they have to be distributed to like NGOs and rural areas, and Madhu is managing that piece. Again, the two teams are working on different things the business team we have all these Instagram be a social pioneer everybody on the call please go to any of your social media and share the website share the link. We're trying to raise funds and awareness right now so on our website, the giving chain.org, you can donate to the go fund me page, you can donate through the Linux Foundation to the project or to the infrastructure to build this out beyond the project date, which is what we're working on diligently and we also have t-shirt sales on the website if you're interested in getting something for your donation. We're doing a big marketing thing to try to get this out. This PowerPoint will be available if you want to use it to show people, you know the websites has all this information on it. The technical team which is why I brought this up is the first time we did this we forked the sawtooth lake example and we took out the fish model and we put in our giving bags and we kind of tracked them that way. But we set the giving chain project team sat on a sawtooth call with the maintainers, and they said that that example that we use no longer is executable with the new version of sawtooth or the new changes and the new dependencies. And they suggested that we try to go at it through grid. And that seemed a little overwhelming for us because it's just the three of us again and you know the other two are college students. So we decided to look into Firefly and we joined the Firefly call, and that's where we're sitting today trying to work with the people at Firefly to use this as a blockchain as a service, instead of trying to build the whole big infrastructure app. And then once we figure out which code we're using we're going to make the giving chain a hyper ledger lab. Again, those are the things that the tech teams are working on trying to get the interfaces the, and then again we want to enter it into a lab. Again, this is just, this is stuff from the first project day when we did the collections. The project one honorable mention at the big block chain challenge in 2019. We then won the government blockchain award for social impact in 2020. And now they're doing that government blockchain awards again and we intend to submit the Uttara hand and the India women project, as well as we did some entered some art to get exposure for the project on a global level. So we did a submission of just pictures from the first show. Madhu created this poster that we entered into the art show as well. And another member of our team, Lamont did this one so that we have three entries into the art show if we win the money goes right back into the project. So, that's basically all I wanted to catch everybody up on. If you're interested in helping out donating or doing anything to this project just go to www the giving chain.org. And thank you very much for your time. All right, thank you Bobby. Is there any questions. No. There is a Asia Pacific marketing call happening next week. So, Bobby if you want more participation probably that also can be a forum. If that is too late for you to attend probably you can share the materials with Dorothy. Okay, what day is that call. That's, I guess it's on Tuesday. Okay, I'll look into that thank you so much. All right, sounds great. Thank you. Glad you had the opportunity to raise awareness in this call to. All right, so with that done, is there any other announcements from anyone else. If not, I think we can move forward with the agenda. We haven't received any new reports. So I just carried over the areas and indie reports we had received shortly before the call last week. I don't know. I haven't seen any comments or questions raised on any of the one of those that needs to be discussed here. But if there's anything anybody wants to bring up now, now is your chance. I assume not, but never know. We are we were supposed to receive a report from borough. I can't say I was completely surprised not to have it. I shouldn't laugh but you know historically I've had to ping them systematically for quite a few for quite a few quarters now so I will ping. And see if we can get the report from them. All right, so that's it for the reports. So now we can get into the discussion part of the meeting there's at least two items we want to cover. The first one, I will let right talk to. Okay, this is fairly straightforward. I would just like to mark the TSC channel in the new chat system for a little while it looks like most of the people are over here for TSC. I would just like to mark the chat channel on the other server read only with a message to go over here to the new chat system. I think it's fairly straightforward but who knows. I don't have any objections to doing so I mean basically a few weeks ago, you know right invited us to start using this new chat system, which is based on the element network or client. It was not clear to me how many people have really started using it, I do get pinged a lot on rocket chat more than elements yet. But I figured maybe that was one channel we could start basically, you know, moving over. The practical way to do that is to mark the rocket chat channel read only and send everybody on the new one with the element. And by the way, I encourage people to look out and download if they haven't done if you haven't done that yet. The element client, you'll find one for every desktop and mobile system you might have. I can use the the web interface but it's slightly more convenient to have the client. So at least I even though I'm a wet person, I have to say in this case, I find it's a bit easier to have the client running and my desktop, my phone. So. I mean, does anybody have any concern with switching over for when it comes to the TSC channel. And again, I mean this is, you know, initially, the way right presented it left me a bit confused, because it seemed like we're just experimenting with the TSC channel, but in fact, it's not just what we're doing. We're actually in the process of transitioning to this new tool. So it's not an if it's just a when question. And so we don't have to switch over everything at the same time every channel, and I don't expect us to recreate all the channels we have necessarily in rocket chat so good opportunity to do some house cleaning and, and maybe, you know, think about how many channels we don't want. But so the proposal is to start with the TSC channel. So I see Daniel as a question as to the timeframe. And Mark as it is and so let's start with Mark. I make a motion we switch over. Thank you. And we're only talking about the TSC channel yet. I second it. All right, thank you. Anyone has his hand. Oh, it's his thumb up. So I guess that's it. All right. Anyone in favor says hi. Hi. Hi. Anybody opposing this motion. Anybody wants to be marked as abstain. All right now. Okay, so this passes unanimously. Thank you. Thank you for your question. Thank you for your question. Thank you to Daniel's question. He said on the chat. The new one that is thank you, Daniel, for using the new channel. The new system. So yeah, we don't have a timeframe set for the rest of the channels. I mean, it's probably something we'll have to, to consider at some point, because I fear that if we don't. Kind of force the move is just not. And of course, you know, we will have so right, what right can do is when he closes the channels, turns marks them as read only is put a link to the new system so that people, because I know, I mean, you know, we, there is a lot of references to rocket, rocket chat. Pretty much everywhere in documentations and so on. And so it's going to treat people when we start. Making this read only so it's important that people get a pointer. So that they find their way to the new system. And by the way. Right. Are you expecting at some point the chat. Eventually the, the, the, the URL to redirect. From my X to the new one. My expectation is that at some point chat.hypology.org will redirect to chat.lfx.linuxfoundation.org. Yeah, I just, we can't do that right now because we're still running the old chat service. And the question about timeframe is. Where we're on hold right now with migrations. So I think that more work has to be done on the PCC to make it easy and automatic to do. So if there's a channel, if there's a, you know, a group of go getters that really want to switch. I'll create a couple of channels or I will ask to have a couple channels created to migrate. But we're really not set up to take, you know, a dozen channels or another dozen channels. So it's not that it's not even automatic, right? You cannot create it yourself, right? You have to. Yeah, I have to file it to get the new channels created. And then you'll notice as people join the channels, I have to ask the admins to make. People moderators as they come on. So I have no superpowers here. So anyway. Yeah. All right. Good to know. Thank you. All right. But so that as far as the TSC concern, we have agreed and we'll do that from now. All right. So that takes care of it. Then the second item is the TSC election yet again. I'm really hoping we can cause this. You know, historically. The election process has taken so much of the TSC time. It seems ridiculous, but. So where we, I mean, we left it last week as to add this notion that, you know, we could try to simplify the work for the staff by instead of having the staff build the list and try to clean up all the duplicates and finding which email people prefer using and so on. So essentially we could have a registration process, which means by default people are not registered to be part of tech part of in the election. Instead. They have to take action to register. And the details of the registration may be right. Some ideas he wants to share, but essentially would force people to specify which email address they want to use. And that would make it then easier for the staff to build that list. So, you know, right, what do you want to say about this? I see that Tracy has her hand up. So, Tracy. Well, I was wondering if something changed from last week. Last week when we brought up this proposal, there was concern about how do we notify people. If we don't have email addresses that we could depend on for the TSC. How could we notify people that this is the new process that's happening. So I was wondering if anything had changed since last week, but we found that we could actually use the Linux foundation identity profile. Like there were a lot of concerns, I think last week and so I'm wondering what's changed since last week when we had this proposal that was kind of rejected. Okay, so we have different reads on what happened last week. Sorry about that, but it's why we are discussing it. There was at least somebody else, I think maybe Daniel, who's the one who supported this motion of registration. I mean, I'll let Rye speak to the details. I don't think anything specific has changed to answer your question directly. Nothing specifically has changed. My thought was to have this be email based. dispense with web forms and all of that. There are only going to be at most, if we double the number of people who voted in the last election, we'll have at most like 250, 300 emails, maybe 400. It will be very easy to, you know, I imagine that that's not something that's going to take forever to sort through. The question of how do we get the message out, I think is a good one. We do have the emails. We can get the emails the same way that we got them before by running scripts. My concern there is reaching, we've apparently historically had problems with mail delivery, particularly in China. And we don't really know anything about the demographics of who does and doesn't vote on the platform that we use. I can't tell that anyone did vote or not. So I don't really have a lot of visibility into it, other than people complain that they don't get the notices. So I kind of expect that we would at least compile the same list as we would have done before, but the difference is instead of trying to use that list as the registration, we would then send an email to all the entries we have in that list, we have compiled and inform people that they have to register. And we could also do like, what is it called? Daniel suggested we do this kind of campaigning about registration campaign, where obviously every project mailing list could be sent an email, every working group and so on, so that people are made aware there is this, just like we tried to do before for the election, we do that again. And but this time we point them to how they should go register instead of how they should check whether they're on the list or not, which is what we did before. So I mean, do you still think that if we did something like this Tracy, that would not be good enough? So my next question is, if somebody registers, how do we determine that they're actually a valid registration, right? Somebody's gonna have to go through every single entry to see if there's a valid registration. I think there's specific information that's in the charter that says whether or not you can actually vote for the TSC, right? And we've had in the past specific information about, if you look at our decision about who it is that we would allow to be nominated from the working groups or the task force. And then the fact that they've contributed to code is the other place that we look. So who's going to be responsible for this? My plan was to have David go to the overview here, to the community leaderboard, sorry, export this data, set the timeframe to a year, export this data and then MD5Ds use the same website thingy that Dave wrote last year, right? To check the hashes of the email addresses. So basically just have an inbox file that has all the please add me to the list mails. Check against the email address in the CSV that you get when you export this. And something in that shape would be it. And if they're not in this list, right? Then that would go to the elections list. That would be the same kind of appeals process that we had last year. We have the elections at hyperledger list. I sent email earlier this week asking if people wanted to still be on that list. And that was for appeals. So are we asking additional people to be involved in that? I know you asked people if they wanted to be removed from that, but did you ask if anybody else wanted to be added to that? Not yet, because I'm like only looking a little bit further ahead. I have not done the general election setup. So no, I have not asked if more people want to be involved in that. I don't remember how many appeals we had last year. I think it was less than a dozen. I could go look at the archives. Most of them were fairly easily resolved as it was the name match and the email address didn't. I'm not expecting a huge flood of additional appeals. Maybe I'm wrong. So essentially what we're talking about is there will be a check done automatically and then based on as much information as we can gather from the tool we have and then we would fall back to some manual check if needed when that fails and there isn't an appeal. So I would expect if this is email-based you would receive a reply. Let's say, okay, you're good to go or sorry, we don't know why you think you qualify and then we can confirm that you qualify and they can explain why they think so and then the staff could check that information once it's received. It seems like a relatively straightforward way to get to some reasonable place to me. I guess if I could ask Tracy, what is, you clearly think that I'm missing something important or what am I missing? It seems that if we have a list already defined that we can check against then why aren't we using that list? Well, for one thing you don't, the duplicates don't matter just to check, right? Well then if I have two email addresses I could add both of my email addresses, right Arno? I mean, if duplicates don't matter, when I register I can register both of my emails and it won't go through an exception process because it won't realize that it's a duplicate. Yes, that's a different problem. People can game the system more. If that's your concern, that's a reasonable concern but that's- I mean, there's multiple concerns I think I have, right? It seems like every time we come up with something there's like, oh, but we didn't think about that, right? I'm just trying to get us to think about the entire end-to-end process and find the places where there's gonna be problems so that we can document this process and we can use it again in the future if we need to even if it's somebody completely different trying to follow this process. I hear you, I mean, to be honest I have raised that same question of duplicates before when we were privately chatting with the right and I think there's a trade-off but we're trying to see if there is a way we can, you know, lighten up the process so that it's not so costly to the staff to implement and there is maybe indeed a trade-off how accurate we want to be how bulletproof we want to be against gaming. I don't know. I mean, Hart has been telling us for years, well, I could create a whole bunch of comments with different email addresses and then, you know, vote on it with every one of them and we wouldn't know. So there are ways. I'm sorry? And Hart always votes himself in. Yeah. Dano? I'm just going to, you know, want to talk about the registration process and duplicates if one of the things the registration process would do is it would make duplicate voting in the active process versus passively getting multiple ballots. So that's one advantage I would see to having them register versus if they're going to pull this game they have to plan ahead and plan on doing it versus, you know, basically, we're talking about attacks on the system versus an attack of opportunity where you happen to get two ballots through no action of your own. So that in theory, you know, assuming moral actors would reduce the risk, but, you know, this is blockchain so we need to assume full attacks. But that's the advantage I see of the registration. And another thing we can consider is making the registration list public afterwards. So, you know, it's open to public screening so we can say, hey, Dano registered nine or three different email addresses. Maybe we should call them out on it. So that's another opportunity the registration gives us more active or we could publish the list that automatically results from the polls and people can inspect it for duplicates that way. I mean, it's, yeah, at some point you can't technically solve all the problems you have to rely on. Vigilant actors either validating or honest actors not cheating. I mean, at some point you got to rely on that. Thank you, Dano. Any other opinions? This is a majority of silent participants here. Maybe nice to hear. I, you know, as I said, I don't mean to discard your concerns, Tracy. I, you know, I think they are valid points, but it's really a matter of whether we feel like we can find some kind of compromise that will make it easier or not. Hot, go ahead. Yeah, first of all, Mark, you know, don't disclose my secrets, man. But no, I feel like we've had one of the more frustrating things about this election discussion is that we seem to go in circles. We basically have the same conversation every year and we don't really end up changing anything. And it's become sort of a huge burden on, I would say, both the staff and the TSC, because we spend so much time talking about this that, you know, we presumably could spend on other more technical things. So I guess, is there any way we can sort of, well, I guess there definitely is a way, but can we codify this discussion and just sort of maybe have a TSC election discussion in the Wiki so like next year's TSC doesn't have to discuss this in so much detail? I mean, of course we can. Nothing is going to stop us from doing that. That's what we chose to do. Mark. OK, can we take a step back and approach this from a scientific engineering perspective? I mean, if there, you know, what were the issues that we had last year with the actual election? You know, and why wouldn't that process work? Was it too, too taxing on the staff to get it done to, you know, or, you know, it seems once we spent three weeks, three months talking about it seemed to go well. OK, so yes, to answer that question, I can tell that the staff is not keen on having to redo what they did last year and the years before. That's the main motivation for reopening this. Daniel. So when I brought the registration, I wasn't really trying to address the duplicate problem, but more the failure to deliver mail problem. So my thought was if you registered on a website that you can go get your ballot from a website. So that was, you know, my main motivation there, the duplicate is like some nice, nice to have. But the big issue I remember from the last election was people not getting their ballots who had properly registered and been validated because email is kind of unreliable. That was certainly the in the last two elections. That was certainly the largest complaint that I heard. And I don't have a good way to solve that. We will not be using the same balloting tool that we used last year or all of the previous years. I talked with other Linux Foundation folks who run elections. There is another tool that they're using that costs a very small amount of money that we'll use that supposedly has better deliverability. But that that was the primary issue. That was ballot deliverability. And then, you know, vetting the list. Tracy? Yeah, I was going to say, I think it has more to do with can dorset not delivering emails, right? There's a limit to how many email addresses you can put into can dorset at a time. I think it's like a hundred. And of course we always had more than a hundred or at least when we started getting emails about, I didn't get my ballot. It was when we had more than a hundred voters for the TSE. And so you have to put them in in batches of a hundred. And then it will accept all of them, but it just, you have to do it in batches. And I think that was a big problem. And I think, you know, Mark, you called it out, right? Like what's the root cause of the problem here that we're trying to solve? And it does seem to be, maybe it was the tool. And if we're using a different tool, then maybe that's going to solve the root cause issue of people not getting their ballots. All right, Nathan. It could seem like the other problem we often struggle with, at least with the Indian areas contributors is it's fairly common for someone to switch employers, but continue to contribute. And so if our tool for registering would let us just link a couple of addresses together, that would be helpful. I'm not really sure how practical it is to try to add that to one of the tools we already have. I know we've looked at the Linux Foundation profile as kind of a way to try to help us with this, but that's one of the things that was helpful for us in the past, looking at the list for the Aries project was to go through and just try to make sure that the address was the current deliverable address because, you know, if either the contributor or the maintainer to know the contributor can report that, it really does help reduce the load. Sure, to your point. This is the myprofile.lfx.linxfoundation.org thingy. And that's something that you can edit on your own. Another thing that has changed for the worse, I guess, is that a voting platform is on the list of features for this. For the profile, for the tool that I have up right now, it just is not going to make it this year. So hopefully next year, voting will be something that will be built into this, but it didn't make it this year. Right in here, there are bright ideas that we could follow, investigate. One idea I just had, you know, I'm not especially proud of it, but we could extend the terms to two years so that staff on me has to go through that painful exercise every other year instead of every year. It would require a charge or change. So that's not a like thing to do. You'd have to be accepted by the board and all that, but it would be a practical way to reduce the load. But the election for whisper one year term, so we're changing the rules after the fact, and that doesn't feel right. We would have to do it at least once, I guess, after this, but we could say, hey, the next election, that's coming is for two years instead of one. That would be okay. I mean, they still have to go through the pain this year, but they skip next year. I mean, it's not a really serious proposal. I'm just trying to think out of the box. What else can we do? What else can we think about doing? Address the main issue. Otherwise, the default is going to tell the staff, well, you have to suck it up. Just do it again. Haught. Yeah, I, I'm not sure I'm a fan of the two year cycle. People tend to change jobs and rules a lot. And in the past, we've seen some. TSC members that have changed a job or a role and are sort of, they haven't, we don't, I don't think we've ever had anyone resigned. And instead, people have sort of just been noticeably more checked out. Right. So I'm not sure I'm a fan of the two year thing. I think in the long run, you know, we can just, we can tie everything to like an LFID or whatever, or the new, what it would exactly rise showing. I hope that will make things easier in the long run. Because sort of the ideal scenario for me at least is that your, your LFID is connected to your, your GitHub accounts. And so everything just gets accounted for that way. Sure. In my perfect world. The feature that I've asked to have built would basically be something that shows up on your, my profile page. And it would say, Hey, I don't know. How many of you use stack overflow, but, or any of those. Like a cadre of sites. But when you have the ability to vote in the election, when you log in and you'll see it pop up and says, Hey, vote. So I want there to be a similar prompt. In the, my profile part that says, Hey, by the way, there's an election running and you're eligible to vote and just have the voting and everything handled within that tool. That's my ideal world. Tracy. I think the, I think the project reports tool that I wrote that uses the GitHub APIs actually. It really, it really pulls the GitHub IDs. That have been used to do commits to the project. Right. And you can see like when their last commit was how many commits they've done that kind of stuff from that project reports. If we could tie the GitHub. I need to a particular email address. I think that's. That's key, right. Trying to figure out how to do that, I think is. challenge of right now. I think what we use is the get logs in the get contributors script. And then we basically parse the get logs to get the, like their name and their email address they used. And it's not based on GitHub ID, but I would think, you know, at least GitHub IDs tend to be static, like we don't tend to change our GitHub IDs when we're contributing. Or we do change our email addresses. So I'm just trying to figure out if there's some way that we could map then the GitHub ID to an email address or a set of email addresses. I don't know if the Linux Foundation profile information has ties to the GitHub or not, but that could be something that we could potentially consider if it does. That's a good idea. It can if the user has linked it. This, I mean, this brings up an interesting idea, which I've put all of half a second of thought into. Would there be a way to do this election completely on GitHub? I haven't, like, do the voting and all that. Is there a way to keep the, you know, the ballot secret? I'm not sure. But that would kind of get away from a lot of this, because we know the GitHub IDs. Hart, Tracy Hart. Yeah, Ryan, fortunately, I've never seen a GitHub, a GitHub voting platform. And I think it would probably be very tough to anonymize it. Could we use the, if we had all the GitHub IDs, could we create like a mailing list specifically for those GitHub IDs that then we could then just mail those people through GitHub? We could do something similar where we create a project, create a repo, create a group that has access to that repo, and then send messages to that group within GitHub. It would depend on the user having, it would not depend on the user having an email address, but it would depend on them noticing that they've got a message in GitHub. That would not work for some other technical contributors that aren't submitting code. Don't use GitHub. True. Daniel brings up a good point. What if they don't have a GitHub account? And I think that question was marked. Yeah, it kills it. So I got you. All right. So we have a lot of problems and not many solutions being proposed, unfortunately. Again, I mean, you know, I'm serious, the default is we stick with what we have and just, you know, have the stuff go through that exercise again and hope that at least next year, maybe there's a better tool. They don't have to do it yet again. All right. Well, I'll let Dave Boswell know. I mean, is that it? I'd like to hear if anybody objects to this, but it sounds like I don't want to spend weeks of discussion on this. So if anybody can come up with a proposal, they think addresses most of these issues, they're welcome to do that, you know, but otherwise, I think that's the way forward, hot. So David Boswell is not here. Are we sure he's going to agree to this? No, I'm here. I'm just on mute. Okay. I mean, just for my point, I haven't been involved in any of the elections last year. So I was hoping that people who have been both on the staff side and the TSD side would recognize the issues and address them. Like I have no context. You know, I have not conducted the ad. My observation just as an outsider is it's been painful and fraught every year. I would have hoped we could fix it. It doesn't seem like we can. So I'm certainly not looking. I don't think I'm being set up for success, but if that's what you decide, that's what I will attempt to do. I, you know, I would hope again that the people who have been involved could address the concerns and issues that have come up. But you know, I don't have any offer. I don't have anything to offer as a solution. Because again, I haven't been involved in the past. I don't really understand the issues. Maybe after we go through this, I'll be more informed and have some thoughts about next year. But it sounds like everybody who's been involved in these elections have raised concerns and we don't seem to be able to address those concerns. Yeah, that's a good summary. We're just playing a joke on you, David. It runs smooth lists, no problems at all. If you, I'll do whatever. I mean, again, I don't have any offer. I don't have any solutions to offer because I don't really understand the system yet because I haven't done it and I will do whatever the decision is. But if I'm not set up for success, I'll just ask that people be patient and that we will do what, you know, our best to do what we decide to do. I kind of so heart and dino also raise their hand and then give up. I mean, anyone else? Yeah, I mean, my impression is that this is a hot potato that all of the staff want to avoid. Now, I don't want to put words in the staff's mouth. But I wouldn't be surprised if this were the least favorite job on hyperledger. Yeah, I think that's a fair statement. Haru. Hey, so I was kind of lost in between when discussion started going all around the place. I thought initially we started discussing how do we finalize the voting list who are supposed to vote and how are we going to notify them? I started hearing the conversations about where do I perform the OTENG, is it Github or is it another platform that we did not use last year? So let's pick up one problem at a time and let's go with certain assumptions on to that. For example, if we do not have a solution for duplicate identification other than marking them to Linux Foundation ID, but as long as the contributions itself is concerned since the login operation is done by a Linux Foundation SSO or I guess tying back to that is the best solution that we can go with. So we can say we'll try our best to match that. And we can say this is the assumption that we are going with that all the accounts are marked to their Linux Foundation ID. And then we pick up the next problem right next problem I guess is how do we notify them? So I like the idea of publishing it across mailing lists or even better what we can do is so we just send out emails to all those that we collected from LFID and only to those ones that are bounced back those emails which are not reaching out. We collect them in one single place and just notify every mailing list saying that hey if your name is found in this list then you are eligible to vote but we are not able to send you this email probably because you are discontinuing from this mail or you use email thread. So that is where we go with another assumption saying that the maintainers of that project if they recognize the person they will let them in. If they do not recognize then we also try our best to identify them let's say through ABC Mechanism. So we will discuss what those mechanisms are if required otherwise we will leave it to Linux Foundation staff or the Hyperledger staff. And by the way there was also an idea thrown out I mean thrown in last week which is about to try to crown some of the work when it came to identifying the people for whom we don't have an email. And I still think that's the valid thing we could definitely try to leverage to lessen a little bit the burden on the staff basically going through the whole process you know just trying to delegate some of the burden. Are there any interns we can give this to? Tracy. So it seems like the if we're talking about the voting roles and the creation of the voting roles being the problem which I don't know that that's true or not but if that's what we're getting towards is there a reason that we wouldn't change from getcontributors.sh to use the information from the Linux Foundation Insights tool? I mean if Rai and David can get the list directly from that is there a reason not to do that? Are we seeing duplicate entries in that list as well? I mean is the same problem exist there as exist and get contributors? Sort of to a lesser degree though as let me just say sort of and I'll stop there. It's easier for me to more permanently resolve that because if I go into identities I can edit someone's identity and add the email address and then it's good forever more which is the same thing that the get that your script does. Yeah through the mail maps. Right and I have that's another feature request that I have which is basically to feed mail maps into insights and turned into something because we out there's a lot of data in that mail map file that there's no reason to duplicate so I'm aware of that it hasn't been implemented. Okay but it sounds like Tracy is suggesting we move to this as the the main source of you know email addresses to get started if you know if there's any gains in doing that we should definitely leverage it even if it doesn't solve it all it's still progress. I would really appreciate if that is the step if that is the change that we use the data from that instead of from the mail map. I would appreciate that because it's way easier to download a csv than to run the scripts. Well let's be clear I mean the the the script that Tracy is referring to I mean it's I don't believe it I was waiver like officially approved by the TSC that was kind of like you know the staff based effort kind of thing that you guys did to to get the list and they get the election going. If you say well now we have a better tool we're going to switch to this I don't know that anybody's can do object. Okay well now we have a better tool and we're going to switch to that. I think that's fair. Does anybody object to that? Tracy go ahead. My hand's not raised to object to it I think it's fine I I would suggest though that we have to update the like we have to do a new proposal because we do have the the existing decision that we made previously so we probably just need to create a new one to override what we have which does say that we will use to get contributor script. Okay and that that rings that brings a good point that I wanted to try and get to so we have two minutes left. I mean the decision we've made previously was that the team the staff would bring the election process with the you know the the specific timeline to the TSC for approval before we start rolling the the implementation for that instance of the election so I think that could be part of that. That sounds like a good thing for a call in a week or two. Okay so if right you could work on this or whoever if Dave maybe is running the show you guys have this action item to bring up the plan for approval by the TSC and in that plan you can you know highlight that you're switching over from one system to the other that makes it official. I will absolutely do that Dano. So my account is messed up on Owlpex right now because of my employment change. Do we have access to Atlassian Confluence updates to see who's updated that in the ecosystem metrics panel because if we get that then that covers everything that the scripts would have read because we have get none access mailing list access um wiki access uh chat access any place that they would provide a technical contribution is being captured in there already. So I think this is a great insight on the part of Tracy that this really does solve a big problem. So the answer is yes the answer is yes but right now as you may have seen when I started showing the insights tool it died because there's too much data so yes we can get the wiki stuff we can get the mailing list stuff I just can't show that to you right now. All right we are out of time so but it sounds like that's the plan forward and that should hopefully I mean it's definitely worth trying so let's go with this for now and let's see how if you know how it turns out but so for now the next step is for the staff to come back to the TSC with their plan on executing the election this year. I will do that thank you. All right we are out of time so we'll leave it at that.