 So with that slide adjustment to the agenda, I was asked late yesterday afternoon to at least coordinate this meeting. So I will kick it off and simply say, as we always have, everyone is welcome to participate. There is an expectation of respect, mutual respect in the discussions that we have. And this is an open forum. So any anti-competitive behavior is deeply frowned upon and will be addressed immediately on that. So the agenda, we have quite a few topics. And as I said, I think the aura of reviewers and the discussion on that is likely to be soon. All right, minutes page is created. Sorry. Thanks, Dave. So let's go ahead and get started on it. Solano, you got coverage on the announcements. Yeah, so actually, Dave was handling that with Min. So I'll go ahead and let him do the fill in for that piece. Yeah, so the only thing we've got in the announcements for this morning is the internship program. Min and I met earlier this week. And Min has been doing a wonderful job of this. But we had to get together and dot all the i's across all the t's. So I'm trying to find my notes real quick, getting back to where I was at. OK, yeah, so we have a total of 27 proposals. We have now closed the period officially. The next step is we need somewhere between 10 and 20 volunteers who want to help be part of the selection committee. It is open to anybody in the hyperlinked community, not just TSC members, not just staff, but anybody who's interested in reading through the proposals and making their selections. We need to select 15 out of the 27. So if you want to volunteer, go ahead and email me. I have my email there in the agenda. Also send an announcement out to the TSC list later today. We finalized the timeline for this process. We're going to give one week for the selection process. So it'll be done. It'll close next Thursday so that we can announce it on the following Monday and open up for intern applications. Volunteering for the selection committee is only for selecting the proposals. And the mentors then will participate in interviewing the intern applicants. So it's a real light lift for the volunteers. We have timed the internship program so that it will close on May 9th and announce all the interns. We did this because it's really close to the end of Google Summer of Code. I think it's within a day or two so that students applying to both or a bunch of different internship programs will all be announcing roughly the same time. That's pretty much it. We have a really strong slate of programs or proposals. We have selection criteria already in the... I have the system set up for doing the selection process and we have selection criteria in there and everything. So if you want to volunteer, go ahead and email me. I'll add just the list and we'll get going. That's pretty much it. All right. Any questions for Dave? Well, no? OK. Thank you, Dave. Next up is the quarterly report for Hyperledger Explorer. I think everybody had an opportunity to review it. Arno, Chris, and Silas, I think are the only ones who haven't checked off on it. Are there any specific questions about the Hyperledger Explorer? Actually, I did review it, but on my phone, so I didn't... Oh, you didn't check it off? OK, perfect. Yep. So any... Do we have someone representing Explorer on the call today? OK, dead silence. I guess we won't do questions on it. It looked pretty straightforward to me and I think given that we've got the reviews and everything else taken care of, I think we'll move on on that. If there are any additional questions, just make sure you add them to the comment section. Yeah, the hard thing with Explorer is most of them are based out of China, by the way. Yeah. OK. So next up, I'm not sure where this came from, but there's been a request to move the TSC to an every two weeks schedule. So this was a discussion that we were having with Kelly and Dan in regards to scheduling and this was a proposal that Brian had moved, so that's where it came from. OK, this is an... OK, I'll just... We have two items for discussion that are sort of agenda-related things and they seem likely to end up bound together a little bit. So what are the thoughts first off? What are the thoughts on moving the TSC to two weeks, to an every two weeks schedule? And then I'm going to bring in this issue of... When we discuss that, keep in mind that we have a pretty substantial backlog of things that we keep suggesting that we need to talk about. I have to admit, I manipulated the agenda that way, because while I understand that people do want to move it to every two weeks, I'm having a hard time clearing the backlog. So it's like I understand that people would want to do that, but I've got this backlog, so that's going to be a little bit tough. So... This is Vipin. I have a couple of observations. One is we have already effectively less than one or two weeks schedule because of the multiple cancellations. Second, so we have to look at the data to see how often did the TSC meet in spite of the schedule, which is every week. The second is, in terms of the backlog, you've already set up a procedure to have asynchronous interaction with the updates, the reports. Similarly, there could be more engagement on the mailing list or otherwise that would make even moving the agenda to every two weeks work with the backlog if people participate in the discussions and give their approvals and do everything on the mailing list or any form of asynchronous interaction. So this is... I would like to know how many people actually support this among the TSC members. I don't. I don't. I don't either. I do not either. I think if there's nothing scheduled, we should just cancel the meeting. But in general, I feel we missed too many of them already because of the staff being somewhere or whatever. Right. I would agree with this. I am not supportive at all of cutting it back. The existence of a backlog sort of means that we're... Precisely. Precisely. OK. So by the way, guys, we are now at Quorum, just FYI. Oh, outstanding. I don't think other than the Aroha thing, I don't think we have anything else that might require a vote for it today. At least nothing that I see on the agenda. We could vote on this today if we wanted to. We could vote on this. Is there anyone who would like to talk in favor of going to a two-week cadence? Crickets. All right. Would someone like to propose a vote on this? I propose we vote on whether we should have meetings every two weeks or keep them scheduled for every week. All right. Well, should I rephrase that? So certainly last meeting is always better, but it seemed to me that, you know, this forum here is important for us to not only communicate, but because of the backlog, we still have quite a lot of work to do. I would prefer to be actively managed that if we don't have significant things to do, then cancelling that and not having the time blocked on the calendar, because, you know, in my case, if it's not there, it's going to be taken by something else. I think... Go ahead. Yeah, I think even we have a weekly TSM meeting, we still need more interactions on the meeting list than other weeks. Yeah, I just see there's a bunch of issues that maybe we're not addressing that, you know, I think we could address more with a meeting and discussions such as, you know, every project seems to say that they're having a lower participation now, or at least the working groups, I know the performance and scale working group, the participation's way down. The learning group, when I just read, they're struggling from the sound of it to keep going. And I don't know, you know, I think we need to start having those kind of discussions. What can we do to improve participation across working groups and maybe some of the projects? Sounds like another topic we should add to the backlog. Snicker, snicker. Feel free. That's a good point. Okay, so would anyone like to second Mark's call for a vote? I hate being formal, but... So what is the question? Let me read... Why don't you try to rephrase it? Yes, I would like to propose that we keep weekly meetings. Thank you. Yeah, I would like to second that call for a vote. Good. I second that. Okay, that kind of... I mean, we're not changing anything, so... I think we are reaffirming... We can just express our displeasure with this whole thing. Okay, I'm happy either way with it. So I think what you heard is that everyone on the call is opposed to moving for two weeks and we're all in favor of sticking with it. So let's just leave it at that. Okay, now that does bring up the second question, which is I think this issue of the backlog continuing to grow is becoming somewhat problematic. So let's just open up the floor to how do we go about clearing the backlog on it. So, Salon, I'm going to start with you. Do you have... I want to talk a little bit about sort of what you're going through with getting these topics on the schedule? Yeah, so the biggest thing is, you know, I have been occasionally posting things to the email list to ask that people try to start discussing different pieces of it, and it hasn't quite gone the way that I would like for it to. You know, like proposing in regards to frameworks, proposing different ones. And so I'm hoping that maybe it can be a little bit easier now that we have the wiki. And so if I propose these different topics and put a wiki page and maybe either make it public or, you know, do some kind of structure underneath the TSC section in the wiki so that we can actually have a discussion either via the wiki or via email so that we can kind of get something written. I think that people feel a little bit more comfortable with the wiki now. So maybe I can kind of point at that direction. But that's the kind of thing that I was kind of looking for is that we can take some of this discussion offline a little bit more and maybe start to work on actual documentation of it. So it's not just email threads that become kind of chaotic and hard to follow. Some of that is, so the ambassador's reboot is actually my fault. And I'm getting that all organized and it's not completely organized, so I haven't brought it to you all yet. But some of the other things, like trying to figure out what to do with some of the other groups and committees and working with them has been hard. And so bringing that to the group to help discuss it would really be nice. So that's kind of how I was looking at it. You know, of course, Brian wants me to put everything on the mailing list. And I put everything on the wiki. So we're kind of, you know, this is the other little... But at the time, I've even noticed on the agenda for today, for example, on the Roja stuff, I actually pointed to the mailing list from the wiki. Sorry, just one thing that I would note about that is that there's no names associated with the items that are currently in the backlog. There's no... Who's the responsible party for bringing those into... Well, bringing them to closure and ultimately bringing them to the TSC discussion, preparing for the discussion. So we all point to each other. As I say, we all point to each other and... Well, so I would just sort of take a page from my days in W3C, and I'm sure Arno did this as well. Just put, you know, every action item should have a name and a date associated with it. Or it's not on the backlog, right? I mean, that's how it has to be. Yeah, I agree. Completely agree. Yeah, okay. I'm guilty of this. There's a couple on that backlog list that are my responsibility. I'll put my name and schedule time to talk about it. So Ambassador Reboot, that's Solana, yes? Yeah. And date? Into the month. Okay, I mean, you know, I'm not saying you need to help us understand when you think you can get it done by. That's what we have to do here. And each of these items, every time we have the backlog on the agenda, the names and dates should be on there. And if something is not moving, we just remove it from the backlog. Yep. I can have that. Not a problem. Okay. So I... Is that Dave? Is that you? Yeah, so let's go through that list. Test nuts is Dave? Yeah, that's me. And that could be today or next week. It's like as soon as possible. I have a proposal for that. Why don't you put the proposal out? Because I think we have to go through the aroha thing. I think that's going to be a little... That's correct. So we'll push it out like next week or week after, because we're going to be talking about aroha for the next... Okay. I think next week. All right, yeah. Project readiness? That's me too. That's a chew on... That'll probably be towards the end of the month, maybe early after April, because there's quite a bit of work still left to do. Okay, and what is this? This is creating a proposal for project readiness or just bringing the discussion up? Grand unified theory of what project readiness means. We have it all over the wiki. I'm trying to put it all into some coherent top to bottom. Here's what you need to do. Here's all the things you can do, all those things, right? Okay. Making it more checklist ready and easier for the TSC to go through and look at what we're doing, see how we're doing it. Also making it really available to the public so that they know that when we sit there and when we vote for the TSC to sit there and say, something is out there and going, that we've actually created a checklist that we can sit there and say, these are all the things we looked at. Okay, so Dave, that one's assigned to you, right? Yeah, yeah, I'm probably early April on this one. The idea is that if you're doing all the things in this product readiness package, that in real life, your project is pretty healthy and ready. Okay, does that subsume the vendor diversity? Yes. Yes. Okay, so both of those are really part of the same thing, right? Yep. Okay. I think diversity is going to be a very big part of the Roja discussion. Yes, that's the expectation. Election of the new chair, who's responsible for that one? At this point, they are. And I'm kind of trying to give them some guidance on that. But it hasn't really gone down yet because I feel like they don't even really have enough people to figure that out. So I have to circle back on that. But to be quite honest, I kind of neglected it with the camp. Okay, well, let's make sure we at least get a name on there for who would be the responsible party for driving it. Yeah, I'll talk to Bobby about it. It sounds like it's you. Yeah. At least for sort of bringing this topic. Back over to me. Yeah, bringing this topic to closure. Yeah. Okay. That's not ideally how I want to run the working groups, but yes. Okay, and Mark, the discussion you started to queue up, we should capture that as a discussion topic. Okay. Which is that at some level, it's overall engagement in projects. Right. And since you brought it up, can I put your name by it? Sure. Okay. Date. When do you want to do this? Um, I don't know, mid-April. Okay. Rye, can you also work with Mark on that in regards to some of the numbers in the scripts and getting that together? Of course. Thanks. And for the sake of blocking out some time, we should put indie moving to active status. And then also the semantic version of Indie SDK will be hitting 2.0. So those two should be on kind of the upcoming agenda. Okay. And maybe instead of calling it backlog, we should just call it upcoming agenda items. Or action items. Or action items or something, right? Yeah. Yeah, and by the way, Nathan, you can go ahead and add, you know, it's on the wiki if you want to put in the descriptions in your name and date. Okay. That would work. All right, cool. All right. Let's quickly do APAC Boot Camp and the BC Boot Camp. All right, so APAC Boot Camp went really, really well. We had over 100, I believe, 133 attendees, 110 on the second day. It's kind of hard to explain just how engaged everyone was. But it was a really hard working crew that got a lot done. I'd say about 80% of people onboarded about two platforms, sorry, projects, and close to 50 did three based off of the numbers that each of those groups had in their rooms. And then I had a few, you know, Pokemon, let's collect them all kind of people who like ran around trying to do all that. The Russian team from IP chain was like kind of going really gung-ho on it to the point where they were exhausted by the end of the two days. But I had six different developers, two with not very good English come up to me and say that this is the most productive event that they've ever attended because it was so developer, you know, centric. And the fact that we had about a third of the sessions in Chinese was a really big deal to a lot of the attendees. And we actually sat down with the Chinese working group and there's some big changes that Dave Hewsby and I are going to be doing to the Wiki to make it even better for localization and internationalization of the documentation going forward. You know, I believe, Nate, how many documents did y'all get translated to Chinese? There's three. One of them is the very, very sizable sovereign glossary. And we're seeing a lot of active translation going on even still. So there's six or seven folks who are very aggressively moving through documents at this point. Yeah. Indy was our star pupil. They were the rock stars at the event. They had anywhere from 30 to 50 people at their side pretty much the entire time. So I think that went really well. And Aroha had a lot of people. They had 15 to 20 people at any given time in their room as well. So they did really well, which was kind of surprising because a bunch of people came not knowing anything at all about them. And that was the thing that I think that a lot of people got out of it is they were like, wow, we just didn't know that there were this many projects. And they didn't realize that there were this many projects that we could participate in. And so, yeah, I think it went really well. Ry, Dave, did you want to say anything about it? Or Bawa, because he was there. Yeah, I was going to defer to Nathan or Bawa. Yeah, actually, I like the table discussion style. Yeah, they encourage more engagement between those developers and other attendees. Besides for the shallow projects, we have two sessions. And for each session, there are over 20 persons. Most of them focus on the question, like if I want to make some like a blockchain service solution, how can I leverage a channel? Or can I use it for the production purpose? Some questions, similar like that. Totally, I agree with Selena. It's a very successful event. And we should consider to make it regular, even for each year or maybe half a year. Yeah, I had basically, I don't know how many people at this point from China say, when's the next one? And I need to bring my friends. They're just like, this was awesome. I need to bring more developers here. We can have more developers here. I think they were very, very enthusiastic. I had one comment that I wanted to add here, that I got feedback on a lot. There were probably four or five people who came up to me to explicitly talk about this. I think just as in general, whenever we have a hyperledger event, we should explicitly tell the audience that it is OK to do it in whichever language you are comfortable in. Because I think a lot of the attendees came thinking they would have to do it all in English, which makes them a bit timid if they don't speak English very well. And when we told them all, you know what? Just do it all in Chinese if that's what you want to do. We got a lot more active discussion, a lot more active work, I think. And like I said, towards the end of it, I had lots of people coming up to me saying, this is really great. We didn't know we could do it in Chinese. Thank you. This is great. I just wanted to point that out that if you happen to be at a meeting, a hyperledger, and there's multiple languages being spoken, just tell everybody, just do it in your own language. It's fine, because we can find translators. Is it considered as a new diversity? Yeah, I mean, consider that just a pro tip along the lines of diversity and inclusion, right? We're an international organization. People doing things in their native language is perfectly fine. Yeah, but I guess I need to bring some difficulty for those American or European people. In China, we are technical guys. We know both Chinese and English. But yeah. Sure, I think it really mostly applies to live events like this, where we're all in the steam room. And we are setting up the Wiki to actually facilitate that so that we can have the multiple translations. And we can have the translations going in the other direction, because the China Working Group has been pretty dedicated to the translating into Chinese. And they also are into translating from Chinese into English. So I think with Chinese, we can support it the easiest. We're going to see how it goes with Portuguese and Brazil. But I guess the main thing is, is the fact that we are structuring things so that we can handle it. And at the very least, we can use some of the other translation tools. And this is where I do. Or would you have live translation events? So we have some live translation at this one, where basically, when I explained how unconferences work and how this was a curated unconference of what we were doing, Scott kind of paralleled me to explain that, which is one reason I think we got such a high level of engagement is because Scott, the entire time, like, walked them through how to create an LFID, how to update the Wiki, all of those different things as we were doing them. And so I think that went really well. I would also like to compliment attendees. The Wiki was very good to give preparation work for the different sessions that occurred. We had, I would say, the majority of the people who were in our sessions the first day had already done all of the downloading of Docker containers and had done some experimentation with all the pieces that we were reviewing. And that really accelerated the process and got folks to where they start doing active translations or log bugs and start looking at code. And that made a big difference. So having that preparation work in place and making sure that the Wiki is populated ahead of time really helped us cover more content. Thanks, Nathan. Okay, good discussion. I had a question if that's okay. I know you wanna keep moving. Okay, I wanna make sure we have plenty of time for the ROWA thing, so I wanna get through this. Yep, do we have something in place to track the return on investment, if you will, to put it in business sense. How many people from this are actually gonna start contributing to hyperledger? Is there something in place to track that somehow? I don't have that kind of tech yet. I'm sorry, Mark, I'm asking for it, but we'll see. However, we did have everyone at the end come up and we took down all the names of all the contributors who did actually manage to contribute and we even had a few bugs fixed. And I'm going to be sending out prizes to all of them and I have their email addresses, but I did not have anything where we're matching up their LFID to their GitHub ID kind of thing to make sure or yeah, so I don't have anything along those lines right now. I don't have those capabilities. Well, and just anecdotally I can confirm we have about seven different contributors from the group that haven't done a commit before but have contributed some content to Indie. And then also for the folks who are there in the Hong Kong area, Cyberport has invited us back to do a follow on event in May, which will have a kind of a similar format because they had some folks express the desire to come back and do another round. All right, so if it's okay, I'm going to cut the discussion off at this point. Solano, we've got Bootcamp contributor summit and the DNI meeting. Can we finish those in five minutes? Yes, so the contributor summit is still ongoing, still trying to find a location. I just met, I didn't know that there was a Japanese contentant for Linux foundation there. They don't typically do Hyperledger, but I'm going to be talking with him as well just to find the locations because he said that he might be able to help me. And then for the DNI meeting at OSLS at the open source leadership summit, Nathan, you will be getting a call because I think I've basically sold them all on Indie and figuring out how to tie Indie to the LFID to get the DNI meetings without having to worry about all the privacy issues because y'all solved that so well already. So that's both of those two. All right, any other questions for Solano on the Bootcamp contributor summit and DNI meeting? All right, so let's queue up the discussion on the AROHA. Nikolai, I sent around a proposal for moving AROHA to 1.0. Nikolai, you're on, right? I thought I saw you earlier. Yeah, I am on. So would you like to take over the discussion? Yeah, I can briefly summarize what is said in the request. So we're really close to the image which we depicted about the final version of AROHA, like an enterprise-grade solution. So all the features are in place. We're just fixing the remaining issues that are present in the code. They are not severe, although. So if you use the latest available version that is completely fine, we're just trying to run long-term running soak tests to observe whether any resource utilization is fine. But so far, we would like to request the TEC to request the TEC on approval for our first major release. We've been active for like one and a half years. So over this time, we maintain the required level of quality. All the code is under Apache 2 license. We've got sufficient test coverage. Our documentation is available in several languages and today we've met Rich from Hyperledger China Working Group and set up with him a process on how they will approve the translations and help us with more contributors in this region. We also have completed the core infrastructure certification and you can find all the details on specific things related to security, requirements and so on in the description for this badge. We've got, although, two issues, one of which is the diversity of maintainers for the project and contributors specifically. So the Iroha node code base and contributors are comprised of mostly ceramic employees and maybe, well, there are some non-ceramics individual contributors although they don't happen systematically. We try to fix our process and there is a diversity plan which is already in effect and we also have weekly meetings where we meet our contributors. There is some activity right now in the direction for Scala Library. Although we really want to attract companies who want to develop their own blockchain solution and contribute with their vision and ideas about DLT tools. So maybe if Alish can review the curtain a bit or Sarah, we can tell more about that. As for now, this is in progress. We're discussing with some of the companies their possibility of allocating resources in order to make the set of maintainers more diverse. And of course, diversity includes not only, let's say, vendor diversity, but also gender diversity and we try to reach out to local communities related to that as well. As for DCO, that's the second thing and some old commits are not conforming to DCO requirements. As Hyperledger Charter imposes the rule that all of the contributors, all of the contributions have to be signed off. We don't meet those standards right now because all commits are not signed off. So we've got a plan on how to fix this issue which has been reviewed with David but it has to be approved by the legal team of Hyperledger and also by TCI, I guess. In general, our user base is pretty big and we've got a lot of users in rocket chat channels. We've got pretty active telegram chat. We've got some questions on Stack Overflow and the cool thing is that our Docker image has been pulled 54,000 times and it means like from scratch. So those are valid numbers. And on Viki page, you can find more details and go over the diversity plan and over the actions that we think will help us reach more diverse state in terms of code maintainers. And there's also a plan on how to fix the issue with sign off thing. So maybe I just can jump in a bit and add something about the diversity thing. Yeah, hi everyone. What I would like to say, well, we cannot reveal the names of the companies but there are two big companies that we are discussing to jump on the help us with the maintenance as well as contributing to Iroha. We had two presentations and they express interest in joining but it takes time like with all big companies usually before they make a decision. And before making any decision at the TSC level regarding that, I would also like to say that it seems to us that it's a chicken and an egg thing because a lot of companies are waiting for a certain maturity level before they decide to join the task force to dedicate some resources to such projects. And I think Nikola mentioned this already in the email that we see that the closer we are to the final release the more people are looking into what we are doing. They are willing to try Iroha but one thing is that you try the new platform and completely another thing is that you commit yourself to dedicate resources and contributing to the platform. So maybe that's in short for the diversity and I would suggest this not to be an issue for today's voting. Yeah, thanks and I think that's all from our side except maybe for Sara if she has anything she's our community manager maybe she got some points. Would you like to jump in? Yeah, I just wanted to also say that Alasja's right and not only from the corporate point of view as soon as we informed people in the community that we are getting closer to the major release more people became engaged and some people decided to work on Scala Library and I believe that that's important for them that the code is almost ready. I think that there have been many changes in Iroha over the last one and a half years and now as we have a vision for Iroha we have a roadmap, people feel more comfortable contributing to it and companies will as well I believe. Thank you. Thanks. Can you guys comment on your outreach to universities or other academic institutions? I know that Inapples is looking at developing a master's in blockchain, is that related to Iroha? Yeah, sure. One of our maintainers is actually we actually planned some classes together on Iroha so there will be two groups of people doing assignments on Iroha creating two different systems and I believe they will be able to contribute it later to the community. So yes, we're working with Inapples University and also Vadim that actually presented Iroha on bootcamp also found some contacts of universities and I believe that we will also try to reach out to other universities as well and also there is a project in Japan on which Vadim is actually working at the moment and it's also in the university so I believe we'll have some interest from that point. Yes, so there is a university in Izu and also a university of Mariupol in Slovenia they used to work on fabric only but now they're also exploring Iroha and I think they are also planning to join the learning materials working group and potentially develop some materials for different platforms including Iroha. Are you seeing signs out of them like logging issues or fixing minor problems in the repositories? Are they starting to engage at all in the development track? If you mean the Inapples University that we're working with now they have a course on blockchain and at some point, not right now, not at the moment in I think in two weeks they'll start the classes on Iroha, especially Iroha. They will have some lectures about how to use it, some basic info to introduce them to Iroha and then they will make projects on Iroha, like use it. I think there are some kind of, there are two tasks. One about getting enrolled on different courses and another one I think is some enrolling to the basically to the universities we suggested two tasks and they can also make up their own tasks on Iroha. So they will be basically writing a code on Iroha and they will probably contribute it to the community later so it could be reused or maybe modified some way. I have a question about the night there on the Byzantine fault tolerant algorithm. First of all, I know that, so I think Yak is the crash tolerant piece and then I know there's an ordering service. Is that a BFT ordering service? How do they interact? And then I guess my main question is just, you said it's experimental now. What plans would there be to bring that into production ready state? Thanks, so just before I guess the third release candidate, the team understood that under the current conditions, the decentralized ordering service may split the network into several partitions if we don't modify the algorithm in a certain way. So there is an algorithm that is called Bosco BOSCO like a synchronous algorithm for distributed systems or something published in 2011 which has a different requirement for the number of nodes 7F plus one and it solves the problem in our case at least with this partitioning thing. So Yak itself will remain as a method in consensus but the algorithm overall will change a bit and we will just incorporate the second phase of voting in order to resolve the possible partitioning issue. Anyway, we decided to move forward with release because even knowing that we have already solution as a design solution for business in fault tolerant consensus, we still need to test it out. We still need to have peer review for this and possibly a formal model that can prove our assumptions and hypotheses. So we decided to move forward right now, have a consensus that is open to, well that is basically CFT because ordering service can split the network into several partitions under certain conditions. And in the future, it would be really easy to fix. We already have JIRA tasks and design but we still need to verify it with academic community and formal models. Thanks, that's helpful, it looks interesting that Bosco thing. On the crash fault tolerant, you mentioned about soak tests. What kind of soak tests have you run and what kind of failure modes have you been able to simulate like knocking out nodes and so on? Is there anything more you can say about that? For now, those are just simple soak tests where we load one of the nodes in several configurations, constantly with like one transaction from a client per second and we emulate those with like 100 clients and 200 clients and the network configuration is like, we've got 15 nodes, those are distributed over Amazon web service instances and we try to measure resource consumption and throughput. So we encountered some problems there, they are localized and we are fixing them. We also requested based on advice from David, a cluster of nodes from Linux. I don't remember the name of the service but you can create an issue on github and they give you out instances. So we just got today 31 VPS where we are going to deploy those tests. Of course, the results for this test should be available prior to the release so we are going to make them available and in the future there are plans to emulate some crashes so that you put down more than F nodes then you, well, bring them up, you observe that the network still can function so on. Just to clarify, that is CNCF is offering free nodes to any project that needs it. So it's open to everybody in hyperledger. Thanks. Okay, so I know that there were two other threads of discussion on the mailing list that I want to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to ask the questions about. One is regarding the DCO and the second is more general sort of long-term commitment to the diversity issue. Those were the two big ones that were coming up in the discussion list. So Nathan, you started the discussion a little bit on the chat channel about the DCO. Do you want to ask your question at this point? I think first that I both have questions on this area. Yeah, so my first statement here is we've done exceptions to DCO and some of the Sovereign Foundation repositories on temporary basis and we've always found that that made the issues much, much worse over time because it gets harder and harder to contact the developers even internally at the company if there's more ambiguity about the recordkeeping and getting approvals from right management in order to make sure that everything is in order and can be contributed properly. So my question is, are the DCO issues internal to Sora Mitsu? And you mentioned that it's not possible to do a code freeze or a history rewrite to get commits signed and I'd like to understand a little bit more what the difficulties there are and maybe push back a little bit on whether it's a good idea to wait. Okay, so we still have some pull requests. They have no problem with DCO. Well, the DCO, we have in GitHub, in Hyperledger GitHub there is a DCO bot that checks every commit to have signed opening. And previously, commit history had a lot of issues in it. So it's like in 2016 and 2017, there were literally no sign-offs and I've sent some samples for those commits in the email thread. So if we move on with the release, we still need to fix them somehow. At the moment, it's really hard because there are some pull requests. So we've just got a plan right now that as soon as we decide to freeze the code completely, then we can put this version to archive so that anyone can check the history of changes in the project and modify the unconfirming commits and create with rebase and create a new repository where we put the new version. That's the one. You don't actually have to do that. So we just have to check with LF Legal, but the way that, for instance, when we contributed the code originally, we didn't have sign-offs on, but all the code was IBM and so we were able to sort of make a blanket statement that the code that we committed. And so we basically, I think the archiving the thing and saying this one doesn't count and then creating a new one where there's a single commit that's signed off by, you know, a codison or somebody from Soromitsu with the right authority should be enough to... I mean, there's 99.9% of the code is Soromitsu, so I don't... No, not really. We've got more external contributors. Next to you. Well, okay, I just did... For the purpose of the DCO, having it all in Soromitsu will make it a lot easier to manage through the history of it. I think what Nikolai's trying to say I think what Nikolai's trying to say is that the early work on Aroha was when Makoto-san was in university and I think there's multiple collaborators that were students that he was in school with or something. They're not Soromitsu people. So the second part of the question that was before is that some of the sign-off issues are external, like they are from the external contributors and we still need to decide what should we do with it. So our approach should work if the legal team is fine with this, but we need to approve that. So in general, when a project comes in, we, we, I'll have, I'm putting on my Linux foundation app. We, this is the reason we wanted to come in with a squash commit. So there's, there's just no question. If the code is already under Apache 2 and I'm taking off my, you know, LF account here, I don't see how it would be a problem to do, you know, archive, squash and publish. Do we know if it was under Apache 2 at the time of those commits? I guess it's the open question. Good question. Well, we don't have an answer for that. When Makoto-san, when he made the initial commit to put it under the Hyperledger org, there had to be some sort of a, I mean, that's sort of like day one. I mean, it sounds like we need to have a- Just move the stuff. How did it get there? Yeah, the initial one was me. Well, whoever, I mean, yeah. Well, it's been a few years, but as I recall, this was transferred in. I can go look at the, I have access to the log and I'm willing to pull that and publish it if it's really important, but I don't see an easy way out. I guess what we probably should do is mount a more formal investigation of the early, you know, try to account for all the change sets that are not signed off, make a unique set of the contributor names, cross-reference them with Sormitsu, and then that gives us the ones we need to track down. I think that's, we're gonna have to just do it the hard way. I think that's right. I think Sormitsu, and this is my understanding before, was Sormitsu can make a claim for all of its contributions. That's correct. That's because of their employment contracts. And so it's just the... It's just the external. Right. All right, so we are almost at time. I wanna make sure whose name is associated to getting that taken care of. Dave, are you gonna work with the client group to make it happen? Yeah, Rai has a lot more access. There's a little more familiar with the LS interest. I don't wanna volunteer him, but if he, you know, I'll do it. But I may need Rai's help on this. I mean, okay. So, I have a related question though. I mean, independently of how this DCO issue is dealt with, there's the question of whether we are allowed to pinch our nose and live with what we have today and release that as a one-zero, or whether we say no, this needs to be addressed first. And I have to admit, you know, the plan that was put forward does not sound bad to me. I just don't know why we wouldn't do that first. Why isn't it done? Yeah. My question would be why isn't it done first? I think it has to be done before we... It has to be done first, but not only that, but I mean, I just wanna touch on the just diversity thing just for a moment. I just did the numbers for the past six months and 99.9% of the code is coming from Soromitsu. And yes, there are a couple of individuals and people working first, you know, Spurbank and Yandex, but aside from that, it's all Soromitsu. So I understand that maybe people are working on documentation and so forth, but I mean, this is a single vendor project still. I mean, and we need to... I mean, I think a plan is good, but I do think we need to actually get demonstrated that this is more than one company's effort. So on that front, I have to say I'm a bit puzzled with the situation we find ourselves in, because in fact, you know, based on that very point, we shouldn't have this project be active. It should still be an incubation. And we, you know, we have agreed that we could have a one-zero release in some cases, even if project was not active yet. And for that very situation, but now we are in the completely reverse situation where we are tying the diversity of the community to the one-zero release, when really it should have been tied to the status of the project. Yeah, if I may jump in, I mean, by doing this, you will just further the project further, you know, this can go undefined actually. So we will not be able to do one point zero and people will be waiting for one point zero and then everyone will be suspicious what is going on. And, you know, we will never get there. So I'm not sure if this is the right strategy at the moment. Arno, were you suggesting that maybe pushing the project back into the incubation and then also doing a one point zero if we can fix the DCO stuff? Well, I kind of, I'm wondering whether this would not make things right in a way. Yes, I mean, we never really discussed this possibility of, but I actually, you know, when I realized the situation we were in, I'm like, how did we get to active status first? It seems like we made that move maybe a bit too casually. And I think if the project was still in incubation, we would be more open to say, yeah, we can still have a one-zero because the code itself is mature enough to qualify as a one-zero with the DCO stuff being taken care of. But I don't know if that's, we are willing to do that, you know, which would be like, just like you said, move back to incubation in, you know, as a representation of the status, the community diversity or lack of, and then still have a one-zero release because the code is mature enough, I don't know. Okay, so we, sorry, we are at time for this morning. Let's make sure that this is on the agenda for next week. Arno, can I ask you to bring up exactly that discussion to summarize what you just said on the mailing list and let's get that discussion happening asynchronously? Sure, I'll be happy to do that. Please do that. I think your point is a very good one and it's one we need to explore a little bit. I'm more comfortable with the quality of the code than I am with the diversity of the contributor base. And I think teasing that out the way you talked about it is a great idea. So if we can move that discussion on the mailing list and then conclude it next week. Do we have similar numbers? I'll present a DCO report next week as well. Okay, that'd be great, Dave, thank you. Do we have similar numbers for other projects whether contributor diversity wise? Chris just said 99.1%. I'm not talking about whether it's coming through a company that is being paid for by the main sponsor of the project. So that they would also subsume under the main sponsor. So do we have those numbers for fabric, sawtooth and others? Okay, so Fipping, can I ask you to also bring that onto the mailing list? Again, we're at time and I've got another meeting I've got to get to and I'm sure there are others as well. Your question is a very good question. Let's bring it up on the mailing list and see if we can get the information we need. Okay? Yep, thanks everybody. All right, thank you very much.