 Hello, everyone. Welcome to the TSC call. I think you must all know about the process here. Everybody is welcome to participate in this into this meeting. But you must be aware of the antitrust policy, the noise of which is currently displayed. And the other piece that governs our activities is the code of conduct which is linked from the agenda. So, all right, so we have a fairly light agenda for today, we'll see, you know, how that goes but so I listen carefully to the recording from last week's meeting that I couldn't attend. I heard about the discussion of the election. And I just at the same time he didn't finish with any kind of real decision so I just want to get back to this and hopefully we can come to decision how to move forward. But so, before that, let's go through the usual set of regular items. So first the announcements. Who wants to talk about the newsletter in case anybody doesn't know about it yet. Well, I would like to give Jessica an opportunity to talk about the newsletter since she has just returned. Hey, everyone. Welcome back. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, so I think everyone's aware like Arnaud said but the newsletter goes out every Friday. It's a developer technical audience so if there's anything you want to add in terms of releases or new features or things that need to be flagged for developers in the community, please go in there and you can leave a comment and for consideration and we'll hopefully be able to include it but we've had it for almost right now and it has over 1000 subscribers so it gets a lot of a lot of good eyeballs and open rate click through so it's a good opportunity to spread the message and mark market your projects and different releases so. All right, thank you Jessica. So the second announcement I want to make is just really to highlight what happened as a follow up to the discussion that will happen then you know we developed the entry incubation entry considerations. The form of a wiki page then eventually turned to pull request against the TSC website or repo. And, and so this actually has gone through and it has been merged just wanted to make sure everybody was aware that basically concludes this task at this point of course, like everything else you know everything is subject to improvement changes so if you see anything, you know feel free to raise that but otherwise. This is basic this piece of work is basically completed this point and I must thank Daniel for closing the issue related. I want to do that in decision log and realize that I've just done that like 10 minutes before me yesterday. But so that's cool, thanks. All right, so now moving. Well, is there any other announcements anybody wants to make that would be a good time. Okay, I don't see any hands coming up. All right, let's move on then so quarterly reports. I heard the era report that had been there for a couple of weeks now. I just wanted to make sure everything had been settled they were questions raised in the report I heard in discussion last week. Some of the points were addressed, I was wondering, I mean it'd be good if the report could be updated to reflect this if you know make sure we have closed on some of these questions. And they all seem to be, you know, she said mean related that would say. I will update it. I think that writing in the comments I will just try to comments that we have everything settled indeed. We've received some help for this thank you right for helping to rename the remaining repose. So yeah I'll just. Thank you. So yeah, I think that we're good on our questions but I'm here if we if you have any questions on the report or about or general pro pro progress. And yeah, I'm here if there are any questions. I got a little bit confused and this time I wasn't late with the report I was a little bit early sorry for that. No worries it's not a problem. We don't mind. Now thank you very much. And so I'm glad this is settled and we, you know the record will show that you know, I didn't want the page to stay as it was with like these questions open and you know, thank you right to add the comment. Any questions from anyone on your report otherwise. Okay, if not, then we got two new reports. There is one from Aries and the other from Indy. There is one at least that is worth opening and discussing a bit because there are questions being raised. I mean, I don't know that you know there are questions that we can really do much about but they are giving us some heads up on what's going on. And I thought it was worth just highlighting. And I don't know how many people have looked since I looked yesterday. How many people had a chance to look at this report but are there any questions from anyone. The contributor community and the diversity aspect of course it's not really any different from what about every project faces it's probably the most common challenge across hyperledger and probably other projects I can't believe this is specific to hyperledger. I actually know it's not because I'm also involved in some LF edge project and they have the same problem so this is a pretty common problem. I think it's good that they are talking about, you know, actually taking some specific action to try to raise awareness and hopefully drive more contributors. Okay, I don't see any hands up. So I take it that nobody has any comments or questions about those. I mean they just came up as usual, I will carry them those two forward one more week. So if there's anything else that comes up, we'll still have a chance to discuss that. So that's it. Oh, Nathan, go ahead. Oh, I would just like to say thank you to Steven for putting those reports together as folks have moved around from different job responsibilities and also as the standards processes at diff and W3C have heated up. A lot of the maintainers who've been working on these reports regularly have had a lot of extra things to do. And so a big thanks to the community members who are helping out making sure the paperwork stays on track. Yes, I think that's a fair statement. I agree. All right, so with that done, then I think we can get into the discussion items. So, primarily, again, I just wanted to close this hopefully close the question of the, the election. She's always a interesting topic we spend a lot of time on. I wanted to first address one point that seemed to be raised several times and I saw Arun also raised it in the TS in the TSC channel on the chat system, the new one. It's the question of, well, whether it is up to the TSC to make those decisions in the first place. And I think a hot address that point I want to reinforce it. You know, yes, you could argue that the board should be having all this discussion making those decisions for us, but better and for worse, basically this is all delegated to us. So, historically, this is how it's been done. We do our own, like, you know, we figure it out ourselves. And if what the decision we make in terms of the election as an impact on what is said in the charter about this election, then we go back to the governing board and ask for them to prove the change we want to make. That's what we did when, for instance, we raised the number, increased the number of seats on the TSC last time around. But in the charter, there's very little said anyway about the election. And so it means we have a lot of leeway when it comes to the details on how we go at doing this election. And there is no, nobody else is going to do it. And I'm participating in the governing board as the chair of the TSC. And I can't tell you, I can guarantee they are now going into the gory details of how we run our election. They're more than happy to leave all these details to us. So I just want that to be clear. You know, it's not a matter of, well, are we infringing on, you know, the scope of her authority here. It's up to us. We can just do it. And again, if in the end the decision we make as an impact on the charter, we'll just get that submitted to the governing board and approve. I'm sure, you know, unless it's outrageous, most likely they will just acknowledge and approve it. So with that said, I wanted to go back so, you know, I was aware of the proposal right at the shared these ideas with me and actually we did a bit of brainstorming together as trying to help him flesh out these ideas. So I was very interested to hear the discussion, a lot of points that were made I had, you know, I had made them myself, either I actually verbalize some of this to to to ride but also thinking about it to myself. And so I was glad to, and I kind of amused that love those same points were made throughout the discussion last week. But I think it's important to try and go back to the original motivation this, I think they were really two aspects to it. There is there was an interest in ensuring that we have better representation from the different groups and projects within the community. And then there is maybe the primary factor honestly was the pain that the staff and Ryan particular, you know, goes through running this election. I think the diversity aspect is definitely interesting. And maybe worth, you know, thinking about some more. The pain point, I think it's something we can actually address in other ways than than what has been proposed which is a pretty major change. And I don't think the two should be tied together. And, and I'll be pretty blunt, I, the most of the problems come from the way we are building this list of voters, right, the people were eligible to vote and then to get nominated for the election itself. And it has to do with so we're running all these creeps and we're asking people to check and register and there's like tons of duplicates, and there is lots of emails that are not valid. And I think this is what we should focus on is like, well, what can we do so I'll be burnt and I'll say first that, you know, I think the staff does too much, because at the end of the day, you know, they spend a lot of time trying to build this huge list of a lot of people who don't care and vote. And so, I'll be honest, I think that the staff should try less, you know, not tries that hard to to get this, this least built that way. And, and, and make sure that you know everybody got their preferred email in all that stuff. On the day I think this is kind of like the burden is on people to make sure they're using a valid email address to start with. And if they don't well then we can contact them and that's just the way it is. But there's maybe a way beyond that which is to kind of reverse this process entirely. And instead of trying to guess who should be on the list is to have a registration process. Instead of an empty list instead of right now we basically start with a huge list, gathered from all sorts of like script running against all the repos and all that stuff. And then we try to clean this because there's a lot of garbage in it. And I'm thinking maybe we should take this different approach which is to start with an empty list and have a registration process. Last, all the mailing list from the groups and projects and we say hey, there's an election coming up if you're interested in participating go register. And we can talk about a little bit. Maybe there's some check that can be made. We can ask, you know, as part of the registration, what makes people think they qualify to be on that list, because the criteria remains the same. And we can do some checks to verify that they actually, you know, qualify. And this was actually done already. There's already a program that was developed last year. You can just be participating developing this where you could go and type your email address and it tells you whether you're on or not. And if you're not, you can escalate and say why you think you should be on. And so something like this can still be put in place so it's not like a free for all. But I think that probably would reduce drastically the amount of work the staff has to go through to clean this up because fundamentally there'll be fewer interactions because there are fewer people anyway will participate in this whole process. So I'll stop this I've been talking for a while. I saw a few ends going up. So let's start with Nathan. In terms of like the issues around the proposal. Well, I don't know you raised your hand. Oh, sorry, my hand was was still up. So the discussion. All right, so who is next hot. Hey, thanks. Yeah, I just want to make sure and make sure we hear from the staff that like a manual registration model would actually be easier for them. I think that's a fair question. I'm not entirely convinced it would be. It definitely might be. I'm just not the expert and I would love to hear from them on that. I will say that I think the answer is. Yes, because we would get a valid email address. And dealing with the invalid email addresses and email deliverability. Is is a huge part of the problem. So I think the answer is, is yes. But I haven't done it. So who knows maybe I'm wrong. All right, thank you right trace these next. I would, I have two points. The first one is related to what we've just said. I'm not convinced that we have a mechanism to communicate to all of the people who want to be involved in a TSC election. Right. If we don't have a mechanism to get valid email addresses, how do we have a mechanism to tell them that a TSC election is happening and if you're interested in participating in the TSC election, add your email to this form. Right. I'm really concerned that we're going to have less interest, even with people who were interested in participating. So that's my first point. My second point is completely separate. So I think maybe I'll stop there and bring up the second point when this discussion is finished. Also, let me react to the point you just made then because I agree with that with what you said and the same thought occurred to me when I was thinking about that but you know, again it's like, if we can't reach out to these people I mean, it's, you know, I understand it's a duty to try to reach out to everybody as much as possible but how much, how much pain we are supposed to go through to do that is really the question here. So today, there's just too much time spent on trying to figure things out that is a situation that was created by the very people were trying to contact so maybe we should take this as a sign that they don't really care that we can contact them. When they put email addresses are not valid is like, well, okay, it's their choice. I think that that's not really where the problem lies with the existing process right the amount of time. It takes is not dealing with the invalid email addresses is dealing with the duplicate email addresses. Those are two very separate things. And if you have to email addresses for the same person you send an email to both of them and ask them which one they want to use. Right and if they don't respond then you have to pick one. If they don't pick one. We don't I guess you I guess you could delete both of them. Yeah. I'm so I'm somewhat handicapped here and that I can't raise my hand. We do have one other good way to reach out. We do have the ability to send basically a notice to everyone that's in the org. We've used this in the past. So we do have a way that isn't emailed that will reach all the members of the org. Get them or of the GitHub work. Yes. Yeah. So I see the floor I see Tracy's hand is up. Okay, so we're moving to that my second topic then which is are there alternative ways of contacting people. Okay at my profile that Linux foundation.org I see that I have a an attachment to hyperledger. Now that could just be I have an attachment to hyperledger because of the TSE. But I'm wondering if there's information in my profile profile that Linux foundation.org right that provides us with the ability to contact people who are directly related to hyperledger. We obviously have to provide registered emails in a primary email in that form so I'm just curious, you know, are there other ways that we think that there's mechanism to actually communicate with people in the community to either say that you're part of the community or you get a vote or your part of the community so you get an email saying go to this place if you're interested in participating in the TSE election. For this, I'm unsure. I don't want to give an answer either way. I will we have a product meeting later today. And I will ask this question. That's, that's a very interesting question. And I can't believe with all the time that I've spent on this tool that I never thought of anything like that so thank you Tracy, that is definitely a blind spot that I had. And that's good. Thanks Tracy. But so, you know, back to my point about the what I'm trying, I don't know what the best way to do it is but fundamentally I'm, I'm totally in support of trying to lessen the pain, the stuff has to go through to run the selection and I heard, you know right basically tell me, Hey, I just don't want to have to go through this again, we have to make some changes. And we all know right as a dedicated person and he's not the lazy guy and so I feel his pain and I'm like okay, you know, there's a there's a I think a balance we have to find between, you know, making a best effort kind of thing to reach out to everybody to be inclusive, and at the same time, you know, not putting such a high burden on the stuff that it becomes so cumbersome to try to go through this process. Somehow, we have to find a better balance it's not. It seems like, you know, so far we've all been towards being as inclusive as possible at no all costs for to the stuff. We have to dial his back some to make it more balanced. How do we, how do we actually achieve that is really the question. And I'm a bit tough, but I'm kind of feeling, well, people should parts, if they really care they should be participating actively into the community enough to be aware that we have a TSE and we have an election every year. They should make sure they can be contacted. I mean, isn't that part of being, you know, an active contributor. I think if you can't really do that completely in isolation if you do then this like well, you build a wall around you and we won't be able to reach out to you and maybe that's what they want anyway. But the point about the duplicate email is a good one and Tracy I don't mean to ignore that because I know that's also a major problem. And how do we make sure that people don't end up with like, you know, voting twice. I was trying to use insights as a data source for this. And, but yeah, my, my hope was that I would be able to, you know, basically download a CSV and get email addresses. And as it turned out, this, this report the community leaderboard is very close. And of course the fifth person has a no reply email address. This is really close, but there are a ton of of dupes. And this is what he's gone through and, and combined all of the, all the profiles grace. Yeah, just one quick question. Do we know how the other Linux foundation or I'm sure you all know how they run their elections do they have issues similar to this. Do we have any lessons learned from them. I don't agree with making it easier on y'all, but trying to be as inclusive as possible. It's a delicate balance I know. But I'm just not sure how everyone else does it. We hyper ledger I think, by far has the most people who potentially have the franchise to vote. The way that they saw this is they have a much smaller number of people that can vote. Got it. Okay, okay. There's a scale issue there, we have a very big community and we kind of created a problem for a self by being so inclusive, which is why I'm willing to dial it back down a bit. Nathan. I think it's a little bit about having maintainers and others help with paring down the list, but we ran into trouble where, you know, only the staff really had the, the rights to see all the disinformation without having explicit or express permission for on from the folks involved. Do you have any ideas on how we can maybe crowdsource this from the other contributors to try to help make the problem better or are we kind of stuck with the tools we have. I don't know that I would say that we're stuck with the tools we have we've never had. For instance this report the community contributor leader board available to us. This does export as a CSV. And this report, which was a few weeks ago. It was around 900 people. And I don't remember but I think six or 700 of those had valid email addresses. Tracy. So, we don't see email ID when we look at this leader board, which is great. But secondly, I guess today the, the get contributor script that runs will actually create a unique list for each of the repos. So if we had somebody specifically in that project who was willing to go through that list and tell us which ones were duplicates which ones were valid. Which ones shouldn't be included because of no reply or they're no longer part of the community or something like that right. Then that could be a way to do the crowdsourcing that Nathan suggest. Well, and I know when we did this in the past one of the troubles we had is those who are willing to volunteer were often also people who were either running, or might have really close ties with those who are running. We created some challenges in that if everyone didn't feel like a universal effort was made on every kind of name. We don't want to create the perception that people are trying to to to ensure their voters are included and not going to a good effort to include everyone. I think in the past it's always been that everyone was trying to include everyone, but we ended up having a lot of discussions over did we spend enough time vetting the list. That's a good point and there's possible, at least perceived conflict of interest involved there. But I want to go back to the example you we were just looking at, I mean, can you tell me, right, what would you do in this case where you have a no reply email. Let's say this. This is one case you have to deal with. What do you do in this case. I'm not going to do it right now. I don't want to have it end up in the meeting recording, but I would, you know, search for this guy's name. And I would go to affiliation management find them. And I would see, like, so this is an example. This is the top 10 people affiliated with hyper ledger their account of contributions and they are unaffiliated we don't know who they are. So I would search here for that person and then I would try to combine them with either a valid profile or an email address or something about nature. This is a manual process you would go through every single time you have this kind of email address and I'm saying, okay, well, we shouldn't do that. This, they don't have an email address we can respond to well that they're not part of this process and that's just the way it is. And kind of, I think, you know, be it's it's a detail on, I mean, I put that between quotes is an implementation detail of the, the way we run this election right. It's like, you know, we never discuss what you should do in this particular case, but I'm of the opinion that the stuff is going, maybe, you know, too far in trying to be inclusive and getting out of their way I can I mean, you have hundreds and hundreds of entries and you have duplicates and this kind of email. If you manually have to go through searches through a bunch of different tools to figure out what email address should I possibly use for this guy. It's just, this is excruciating. I don't think anybody realizes how much this involves for you. And I'm of the opinion that we should, the TSE should make a clear decision to instruct the staff to, you know, not to have to go through that in their implementation of the election. They take it a bit easier and say, well, if we can't contact people, if you can just like, you know, the email address is not valid, then we can contact them. They are not contacted. And that's it. I'm maybe a bit tough, but that's my opinion. Tracy. So, obviously, I used to go through this process and do this so I have some insight into the fact that there are no reply email addresses for people who I know the email addresses for. Right, so to say that we should just eliminate all no reply email addresses seems kind of wrong. Right. I think there's I think there's exceptions to every rule that you could make. Right. And that's just one of them. And so I, I understand wanting to make this simpler but I also think that if we eliminate people, we're going to cause grief. If people are going to, you know, throw up their hands and potentially make noise and that's going to cause, you know, this, this question of whether or not we're being inclusive or not so I definitely don't have a good answer. I do think that there are things that that would cause us to say, would I really eliminate a Chris Ferris if he was using no reply on GitHub. Right. And he was the chair. Right. Like what I have eliminated him because he was using an old play email address. No, I would have contacted Chris and said, Chris what email address you want me to use for your, your TSE vote right. So I just think that there are these sorts of issues that we're going to have to deal with regardless of how simple we try to make this. Hold on. So let's go a bit further with this example because I agree. I mean that would be an undesirable effect. But I think in this case you would catch it in some other ways because we still have this tool. You can go check whether you registered or not. And if you appear not to be on the list, you can appeal and say, hey, I'm not on the list. So I think in this case, you know, Chris Ferris would have definitely tried this and say, oh, why it's telling me I'm not. Thank you right for showing what I'm talking about. And he would definitely react because he is involved and he would say, okay, there's a problem here and we would fix it. So, and by the way, does it, I'm sorry if I'm being naive here I honestly don't know why do people put those no reply. Is it just to avoid spam. So, the issue is a little more complex than that. Sort of. If you are using GitHub, and you don't have a public email address. GitHub gives you that no reply email address. So that's where a lot of these come from. And a lot of them are also get up is by far like the largest source of them. But there are a bunch of other ones. For example, like qq.com where it's a series of numbers. And apparently those are easy to get new ones. So I get hub is is the largest one but they're not the only one. And, okay, so this is done automatically by GitHub because people have not published their email on the profile. Right. Yeah, yes, you can so the thing is you can get their profile from that. But again, it's manual. And it'll be like no reply plus ride Jones at get hub.org or whatever, you know, whatever it is. So you can get there and. Okay, any other opinions on all this. So I'm afraid that you know the status quo is we're going to repeat the same process as we had last year which you know is being deemed quite painful by the staff and I think that's an unfortunate status quo. But this is where we stand. So short of finding ways to lighten up the load there. When you just repeat this. And so by the way, so there was the discussion, the broader discussion that with the proposal around rice proposal. I got the feeling at the end of the call last week there was no, you know, not enough enthusiasm to carry this forward so it's kind of abundant at least for now. I think personally that there's still some ideas that we do discuss further but we don't have the time to go through this for this election. And of course, right said well, nothing stop us from delaying the election to you know later so we have time to figure all this out but I don't know if we want to go through this. So I take it that the default is, you know, we're sticking with the current process. Maybe there are things we can find out to lighten up the implementation aspect of it. But the process doesn't change. Am I right here. I feel sorry for the staff. I mean, I do agree with what you're saying about, you know, put the onus on the people with the bad email addresses, rather than putting the onus on the staff. If there's a way for them, if there's a way for us to get the word out that this is our policy, and they can go check their profile and their email addresses. I think we can put the onus on them for that. I think Tracy said, you know, one of the problems is the duplicates which might still have to be reconciled manually. Yeah, race. It's really clear. It sounds like we're, so I know where I put together proposal last week on the, or you know, I don't know the right answer. It's very and definitely want to help the staff in any way we can. So, it sounds like what we're agreeing is that the proposal from last week was not a good fit for the needs. I said coming. I'm just saying this out loud again to make sure I'm falling. And then we are recommending the just current process. So I just we just haven't looked at the recommendation from last week so I want to make sure that's for the proposal from last week. Yeah, I think thank you for bringing this up because I agree it's important to be clear on the status of this proposal, but you know right put forward last week I think I and I may be wrong so tell me guys if you think I'm jumping the gun here and saying, this is basically basically being discarded at least for now. But my feeling was, well, one aspect, again, there I think there were two motivate main motivations for it. One is the diversity aspect representation from different groups. And then the other part was the pain involved in the implementation of the election, which is just talked about and I have to say I totally a code the point that was made that you know if we left to each project in every group to come up with their own election, they would most likely turn to the staff and say okay we have to run an election for a project. So that would make you help. And the staff would end up running like, you know, a whole bunch of election instead of one and going through that same process multiple times. So that would be, I think I can see that this would actually lead to less work for the staff, because they can't get away from having the people ask for help running their election but it is diversity and that I still think is interesting and might be worth looking at again. So we have other people, Nathan, they still on or you. I'm on for real this time. Okay, I'll lower my hand now so I don't forget. We took a lot of work and this is credits to to Tracy and to ride mostly about writing down what the process was for the election. I, and the, the proposal last week was a radical departure from a lot of that process so I guess part of my question or one of the changes that will help most, or help support right in his efforts the most to the process as it was recorded before. Like, can we bring in maintainers or others to help prepare the list down. And can we make official that it's not on the staff to try to hunt you down, but rather it's up to you to go check on the list and do the appeal. Are those formalized in our written election process now. And if not, can we can we go ahead and formalize those pieces so that the staff has that confidence that they're not on the hook for that. That's a good point. I mean, you know, I mean, Tracy did a huge favor in going and digging into all the archive of the decisions. And it's probably something that would be worth capturing into a page that we could add to the TSE that describe all this decision in a kind of like a narrative. You know, that explained the process and all these decisions are captured in one spot. So I think that could be a good piece of work to be done there that would be useful. And we have all the material right in front of us in this page that basically we would have to put in there. Daniel is under the queue. Yeah, I wouldn't necessarily say that rise idea is dead I think we had like 24 hours to contemplate and reflect on it. And I think one of the issues with it is there's about you know between three and five distinct ideas that are probably worthy of individual consideration. So I think the lack of enthusiasm we saw was there's no way we can get consensus on this in time for an election this year. So I think probably the task we should do is after we get this election settled. I don't know if it's for this TSC or the next TSC is to consider those ideas independently and see if we want to change it because I think the idea of having active projects abroad projects that still satisfied all the active criteria get an automatic seat on the board has merits. Having the premier members, I have a better question about whether they belong is the TSC, because they do get governing board seats. And also you know giving you know that the working groups a fixed seat I think those have some merit and are worth discussing, but I don't think there's any way we can come to a consensus inside of two weeks which is about what we need it. All right, thank you, Tracy. Yeah, I, I'm still going back to Nathan's idea I think that there are ways that we can do what Nathan is suggesting right which is reaching out to the maintainers. If we have the staff provide them with a list. And basically have them do a yes no or change email or whatever the case may be right. Something that could then be diffed to see like what were the changes that were recommended by the main painters and verifying that those changes look appropriate right so that it's Nathan's not deciding that you know, Stephen can't vote or something like that. I think they would do that but I'm just giving an example right I think these are the sorts of things that are big that the checks and balances that could be put in place to help ensure that the maintainers aren't doing things that we wouldn't want them to do or excluding people that we wouldn't want them to exclude. Okay, thank you. So let me react to those last two points that were made Daniel first, and this is what I meant. And, you know, I want to clarify when I said I think the proposal from right is for now discarded I said for now because this is exactly what I thought that you know, we could still look into these ideas, you know with more time. So I'm totally open to that. And then. So back to Tracy's point which you know definitely I think is worth considering given that you know we seem to be going towards a repeat of the same election process. I think, you know, it's one practical idea on how to lighten up a bit the, the cost of implementation for the staff. So I think it's definitely worth considering doing this. And, and yes, maybe there is some room for, you know, perceive the conflict of interest or so and so on. But maybe this is something we can accept. And, you know, again, trying to balance things out. It would be such a bad compromise. We do a little bit of crowdsourcing and, you know, at that cost. Daniel. Have we considered possibly a get out to vote during the registration bit where every single call has someone from the TSC on it. What are the community call or development call that they have for, you know, a couple of weeks. So we can basically make it clear to people on the call you need to verify and double check on us on you in addition to the email spams and the, and the GitHub notifications. That's something we should possibly formalize to make sure we get full coverage of all the working groups and project meetings. I was expecting an answer from the staff but I think there are a lot of phone calls. I think is a very good idea in theory but would be very practically difficult to pull off. So what I heard in Daniel's proposal was that TSC members would be attending the phone calls not staff. So I, that's more on how TSC members feel about attending phone calls because I imagine that TSC members already attend quite a few of the phone calls. I don't feel either way about it. I think it's a good idea. And that's just it. We would need to figure out which calls we're ready on, and then which calls need coverage and then amongst ourselves figure out who wants to go to which call make sure that the word gets out. I mean there's 15 of us. It shouldn't be something that only one person does it should be very easy to get coverage especially for the phone calls that happen in strange timeframes I mean there's a calendar that has these. TSC wants people to get out and vote. I think TSC is the one that needs to go out and do the knocking on doors. We could serve as a quick AMA for people to know what is the TSC do, why is it relevant why should I vote from an actual person on the TSC I think that would be very valuable in those calls to encourage turnout. Okay, I think this is a very interesting idea. But just to clarify, I mean that doesn't lighten up the process of running the election though right. If anything you're going to bring more people. So if we move to the point to the idea where you have to self register or self validate I think it's critical. Yes, but okay. And I think it's good, you know, independently of whether we are changing the election process anything this is a good idea to do some outreach and making people aware this election is going on. And if they want to participate, they better get involved. Nathan. I've always done that kind of pitch the election as an announcement in all of the meetings that I attend. And I know a lot of the other TSC members have been doing the same thing so I think it's fair to say all this should be prepared to do that be prepared to answer questions about the election eligibility about the form. And also, you know what what you can to help with the with the elections process I think it's a fair thing for all of us that that's part of kind of our remit as being on the TSC this year to help make sure that the process for getting next year's TSC together is is fair and sound. And I think probably as part of the announcement we should share the link to the check you, you know whether you registered on and not, and that way people would have a chance to, you know, I will point out that right now. There's only one valid email address. So, please don't do it yet. Yeah, please don't tell anyone I deleted all of last year's data. So, I don't want people to get upset as they find out that they're not in the list because I'm the only email that's in the list. Well, as I told the right the other day, and he said that was like, well, I guess that would be a good way to simplify the election process. If there's only one voter. We can do it to right to decide. I absolutely do not want that. No, no, no, no, no, no, no. All right. So we're getting closer to the end of the call and I want to make sure we have a clear, you know, understanding and now to move forward with this before we close because, as Daniel reminded us, another current process, we're supposed to run the election pretty soon. And I mean, in particular, it's not the election is in October, right. So it's not that soon. But we have this thing that the process in timeline needs to be, you know, sorted out a month before. So that means September, and that's in two weeks. Arun. Hi, so I have a little different for this whole election thing. I know, even last year there were so many discussions on this. Can I mean, I don't know if it time permits this time or maybe whoever comes the early next TSE should we have a proposal where we move the selection or nomination or election of TSE. Leave it to somebody outside the TSE itself, because if it is us, then we are going to say, Hey, this is the process that will be followed and we'll follow this process for the next time. And I don't know if you can conquer or not. Should we leave this process to either the high collegiate itself and staff or should we leave it to the governing board to decide the process. Instead of us are self deciding it. As I said earlier, I mean, the governing board is not going to figure out all the details. If we ask them they'll say, Well, why don't you tell us what it should be, and we'll tell us what we think about it. That's how it works. It's like executives in your company, you know, they don't really do the work they make you do it and they just approve it. I don't know. I don't know who else we would turn to. I don't know the staff we can hear from right what do you think about, you know, being the responsible for deciding how the election is run. My proposal last week was, you know, pretty roundly, not totally supported. And so I don't, I hadn't even intended to discuss it any further. So I was surprised to see that came up for this call so I don't know. This is even different. I, my understanding is I really say you wouldn't have to ask for the TSC to approve your ideas. You just say this is how we're doing it this year. My home address is widely known and I'm not interested in it. Aaron, I have to admit I'm not sure this really solved the problem because I don't know who these other people would be who else is going to, you know, care enough to figure out this election process. I guess if the owning boat asked us to give them the input then I guess it's us. There is no choice. I think this is something we are stuck with. And we have spent a lot of time, you know, historically, if we added all these hours of course we discussed election related issues it's a bit ridiculous but that's the cost of doing business I suppose. So, is that it? So I take it that, you know, for now we are sticking with the current process, but as a way of trying to lighten up the process of implementing this lighting in the, oh sorry. As a way to make it easier on the staff to implement this process, we will try to do this kind of like crowdsourcing where they can delegate the verification of the email addresses they have to the maintainers. I think this is an interesting, you know, I definitely want to try and pursue this. Are we agreeing on this? I will point out that Tracy's scripts do generate the config file forget to set the equivalents for email addresses so this could be as simple as, you know, having each maintainer take or having each TSC member take whatever one 15th of that list. Dano? Um, this is a bit of a tangent, why don't you go ahead and pitch your pot. I did. Okay, so one thing that I think was briefly discussed was the notion of having the members kind of register themselves rather than us going to the list. And we don't have time to really discuss that or vote on it for this idea that's not way too short of a thing to vote on it. But what if we did a two phase commit where first you would register to vote for this election. And then between the registration the actual voting we run it against the list auto approve everyone who would be in that list and the ones that don't auto approve. I think we're going to have to make sure that we don't screw me along make sure they're actually have some level of participation on them that, you know, we need to be done publicly for transparency. But I think that would, if we make it clear that to vote on the election, you first need to approve and put yourself in line. I think they were going to run into less of the issues and people say, Well, where's my ballot. They were, you know, got, they were never on those lists and they thought they're going to get a ballot, and they never did, you know, beyond the issue of the email systems just generally being awful. Yeah, so this is very much in line with what my thinking was on this indeed, but Tracy's point is well, you know, how do you reach out to the people to make sure they know they should register. You know, if you vote the email broadcasts the GitHub notifications, if they're going to get a ballot that way, then they'll be able to see that and be able to do the commit the first stage of the two case commit say I'm interested in voting and then they get their ballot. Now this is this is the way mail in voting works in Colorado to be honest. I was afraid this election process would come up and then obviously with everything that's going on that front in the US to be, you know, I'm afraid we're going to have dividing opinions. Gary. Hey, hey, just real quick. I mean, yeah, I mean there's always a chicken and egg problem right. It's like, you know, tell people to register broadcast blast out whatever right if you don't have the emails. The only list that we're using or whatever right is that and then then of course we're not everybody who I guess is a member, you know, has this thing. I guess just a tangential question and I might have missed this because I have to admit I tuned out for a second. Like, do we actually have like the only ones I ever saw were like last year from like two people, like where are these people who complain about like this process. Like, like, that's that's my whole thing like we do a lot of work on this we're trying to be inclusive you know by the way right proposal on having the teams vote for the road isn't isn't a bad idea. But I guess, where's the complaints right and if somebody really cares, like, there's no way that everybody can know everything right like we can only do the best we can to broadcast out to whatever email you gave us if you change it if you gave us a bad email. Like, that's it right like, there's not much more we can really do I think we're, I don't know I just think we're going maybe you go kind of over saying this implied going a little crazy on this. All right, so we're out of time thank you. I mean maybe we can discuss that part again next week but otherwise. I mean there's this idea of, I think it follows this idea of doing a registration process that could be checked against the list. And one thing that this addresses for sure is you don't really end up with duplicates. I mean, unless people are trying to game the system but let's assume that's not the case. All right, we have to close on this we're one minute behind already. Thank you for joining back to you next week.