 recording now. All right thank you. I assume the antitrust policy notice is on display. Hello everyone this is Arnaud. I'm on the phone today so I can't see but I assume the antitrust policy notice is being displayed. This meeting is open to everyone. You're welcome to attend and participate however we need you to be aware of the antitrust policy notice as well as the cutoff conduct which basically requests that you behave. So with that further ado I would like to get started. We have a pretty packed agenda. There are things that I think are important that we get to discuss. So Dave you actually have and I apologize we didn't have a chance to sync up on exactly the intent was. I saw as I said on the chat you had inserted an announcement on the community calendar Reorg stuff but it wasn't published and when I made a change it pushed the publication of your change and I don't know if you actually intended this to be an agenda or not as a result. Dave? And you might be on mute. Is Dave double muted or something? He's got two different accounts open so we can't hear you right now Dave whichever one you're happening to be using. Do you want me to unmute you? I'll unmute him there. Dave are you there? I think he has to join for our deal. But both of them have the mics showing for Dave. He's got two different logins and both have the mic unslashed. Well let's not hopefully is going to figure it out but let's go to the quarterly reports we can get back to that next if Dave manages to to get heard. They were three quarterly reports filed. Thank you all for doing your homework. The first one is the performance and security working group which basically states that nothing much is happening but we have actually some discussion going on as to what the working group should become anyway. I mean working groups in general which would impact the performance and scalability working group. I don't know that there is much else to say. Mark are you on? Do you want to say anything? No I am on. I wasn't you know we've looked at doing defining metrics for Providence use cases for supply chain but we haven't been able to get a lot of people interested in doing that and so we've sort of been meandering about trying to get that done but it's hard we only have two or three people working on it so anxious to hear you know we've had lots of more people contributing when we have like the fast fabric people come talk to us or something like that so definitely interested in figuring out you know what this reboot would look like and how we can get people interested in performance and scalability again. Right and quite frankly I mean I'll repeat what I've said before is that there is nothing wrong in declaring victory and say okay there doesn't seem to be any impetus behind this now we just close it and tell somebody else says hey I want to do this is there enough people interested so we can start a new effort I think we could just close it. Well I think there's interest in still being able to review papers and things like that I know there's another fabric paper out that I want that I'm reviewing and want to figure out how we can share publicly on the website so okay the idea of a you know SIG whether it be technical SIG or we go under the other under the other. Okay so then we just leave it alone for now. Yeah if there's no deliverables it's easier to man. All right thank you any questions for Mark? So on and I guess this is all again it comes back to the whole okay so now we have SIGs or T-SIGs or whatever we call them and we aren't yet settled on whether they produce anything but I think it's a different story comes when somebody comes in with a paper that they would like to be published somehow or other through Hyperledger now whether that's no is it more than a blog is it you know is it I guess that that then becomes a question for well how does something like that get processed is that something we should be channeling through marketing although again I guess it's it's not really marketing it's a technical paper or that's you know the kind of thing that I'm thinking about and so then the question becomes do they send it to the to the TSC and the TSC decides? Yeah that's an interesting question Chris yes I agree I think you know I don't want to get into this now we are just going over the quality reports but I do agree with you that this is an interesting question is that's really the intent that some I mean some people have that intent to publish papers we should definitely have an open issue and discuss what what the process is yeah all right let's move forward then Hyperledger transact so there was a report find I added the review section that was missing many people have checked their boxes there was one question from Mark yeah this is Mark Ford I'm actually on the call if people have questions I may not be able to answer them all but I did put the report up yesterday and I apologize for the lateness of doing that so I'm glad to see so many people still managed to have a chance to glance through it you typically like to get these things done a little bit more on time yeah but thank you for for doing it anyway and there was a question from Mark Wagner I don't know if you had a chance to see that he put that as a comment yeah so I see it asking if anybody was tracking CVE issues that's something I I don't know I haven't seen any any specific tickets in Jira that fit that description but I will check and let the team here and that be something that could be responded to on the transact channel on rocket show where most of our conversations occur okay so Mark Wagner you do you want more than that I mean I don't know that there's any outstanding CVE's right now but I know some of the earlier Linux CVE's were due to the hardware sure they're using your product console or this project I'll throw that past some of the usual suspects here and see if we can get a response on that transaction that helps okay thank you any other questions we're running transact if none let's move sorry I know just a very quick one but because there's a there's a link this is Angelo I am but is there any example available on how to use transact if it's usable already because there's a link that on the website on the git repo that points to the examples but it's empty so will it be filled at some point or what's the plan there you mean the example on the crates release but no also in the github repo so if you go to the github repo or transact at some point in the rate read me there's written out this is the link to the examples but then you go to the example it goes to another github github repo but it's empty there let me go off to take a look at that yeah oh so there are already examples available are there examples of working transact yes he's referring to the transact contrary though that we currently don't have anything in but where things will get put into eventually yeah I think that really is that eventually we would put some things in there is that a day or do you put the ready planning on that or by the end of the year next quarter first quarter and next year I'll have to follow up on that I don't have an update I know I mean under private health we talk about a couple items that are starting to make use of it like the lives up to the library is starting to make use of it so that'd be an example even though it's just simply using the rust crate yeah library for that and then the new open-source splinter is leveraging some pieces there but far as something that would actually fit in the definition of that example I'll have to follow up on that associated with the link that was just okay so that's the correct so there are other projects using pieces of it to not to the entire transact yeah the idea is really to grow with that component and that grant would grow in alignment with those other efforts but yeah as far as like a standalone transact example that's something we'll have to follow up on got it thanks much okay yeah one reason we recently contributed repo in a project was that we were ending up with two different kinds of examples one is a background noise but when the when the core maintainer team creates examples then those were typically in a regular repo that maintained along the project but then often there would be contributions of things maybe a debris removed by teams separate from from the core project team and so those might not track as closely so that's one of the background behind having a contrib repo as opposed to just having an integrated examples directory in the main all right I guess not so that's good thank you thank you so the last report was for the cello project since I could all people reviewed it and there is no issue raised by the project and no question asked by any of the TSC members so I assume we are good anybody else wants to bring up any issue related shallow now so I guess maybe I do as I was just scrolling through this again I noticed version 1.0 release is that a planned release is that already been released because obviously I don't remember approving the 1.0 for cello yeah that's a good question I read that as something that was planned but maybe it has happened because it says we are redesigning the architecture and finishing the features for v10 so I read that as this is there working towards this but okay so we probably we know do we have anybody from cello here or with somebody who is in the know so I mean I think it's worth reminding everyone that you know projects should not have a major release with that coordinating and going to especially for the first one for the first major release whether it's 1.0 or something else because you have the past that makes you start somewhere else the first hyperledger major release ought to be going through some approval process with the TSC we have an approval process for that we've done this for the in the past there is quite a bit I mean normally there's a lot of you know resources are located to this event because there is press releases security audit all sorts of things happening at that time and so we don't do that too lightly and unfortunately some projects don't seem to be aware and we have already had one case of 1.0 release happening without any you know any process any approval and there was no intent is just not knowing but it's unfortunate so we you know I'm taking this as an opportunity and I agree with you Tracy it's important to raise here for cello we they should be made aware and it's probably worth a comment on the leader under on the yeah I just dropped a comment in there so that people are aware thank you all right let's move on then is Dave back on with a voice yes I am can you hear me I am yes I can hear you now yeah I just wanted to give everybody an update on the they community calendar switch over so I've gone through all of our lists and groups out I have granted moderation status to anybody who followed my instructions last week and said hey would you please make me a moderator of this group what we have left right now that list there are community groups that do not have a volunteer to be moderator and then there's another small group there are community ones where we do have moderators but the moderators are hyperlitric staff so they're like Salona or Rye or me that we would like to have a community volunteer so again I ask everybody on the call take a look at that list if you're a member of any of those groups and you want to volunteer to be moderator being a moderator doesn't really do anything other than give you the ability to edit the calendar and potentially mute people who are being unruly that's about it so we should follow those steps that are crossed out yeah please email me with your your email address with a subject line saying please mod me and I will do that this as soon as we can get everybody here all these groups of moderators will move on to the next step actually those with moderators I'm gonna start moving on to the next step having them move the community events over and hopefully today or tomorrow I will get a quote-unquote new calendar new community calendar up on Google calendar that you can subscribe to so that we have the old one and the new one side-by-side and we can start seeing you know what the status is everything that's it I need to thank you very much all right thank you Dave hey Dave Dan I was just looking for a clarification do you want potentially multiple maintainers to volunteer you just want them to coordinate a single point in contact oh it doesn't matter we can have 10 we can have one it doesn't matter I'm leaving it up to the group to decide what makes sense okay great anything else on the real calendar real risk nope nope that's it for now I just don't want to confuse things let's just focus on one step at a time all right thank you Dave all right let's move forward then so you may have noticed I made a late change to the agenda I was purely structural in response to a comment from Gary who just informed me by the way that he's been he's been hijacked in a customer meeting and he is frustrated that he cannot join this call but he said it's not clear from the agenda what is expected to be voted on so I have actually changed the structure slightly in highlighting the items that I expect us to have a vote on and things that are more up for discussions I do want to highlight that at the harrier river this is not meant to you know prohibit discussions on on the decisions item or vice versa decision on discussion items if the case might be if somebody you know sometimes we have discussion we say hey we are ready to make the decision let's just do it I wanted to be clear for everybody that it's still a possibility we're not precluding any possible ways forward so with that being said there was one thing that we left out last week related to you know the the different proposal that came out of the working group task force there were two related the proposals one was basically to stop you know to drop the notion of working groups as they have been existing and then to transition them to a new type of working group which would not have these requirement of having deliverable to produce deliverables and in the discussion you know the point was made well this quite expensive to change the name of these groups and just like from a website point of view all the information we have the category of groups called working groups it would be better off keeping that name so I have actually put together counter proposal which went through some you know refinement over time over the last couple of days but so which basically says we're keeping the working groups as they are we are merely changing the purpose of the working group making it clear that those working groups are you know they are meant to be about information exchange and not production of deliverables and so my proposal today is to basically you know say no to the first A&B proposals and to say yes to the counter proposal which you know there is one item that is might be worth discussing that came about in the discussion so in the discussion last week I think it was Chris but you know I might have been other people there was this question about whether working group could still produce deliverable or not and I think Chris I apologize if I get that wrong but I think somebody at least said well it'd be clear if we just didn't have that at all because then you don't know what's the what really the difference between task force and working group if we say task force are set to produce deliverables within a time frame the you know maybe it's better to say working groups do not do this and that would mean working groups basically are not expected to produce deliverables and if they want to do that they simply have to basically launch a task force which for which we have defined a process now so it wasn't that's that was you right thanks and and so my proposal states that in the description there is there is this implication is actually highlighted some people's you know I think it was hot and Mark Wagner said well how are we going to enforce this and what not I don't know that we need to go crazy on you know defining a very strict model for this but I think it's worth having that expectation so any questions or comments I don't see a need to prevent the working groups from creating deliverables and it seems unnecessary to create additional bureaucratic steps that they would have to launch a task force so I would be fine with just dropping that that last line from the proposal yeah I mean Chris since you're the one who bought it up how do you feel about not having that in yeah yeah I hear you go ahead yeah so look we keep going around around in circles and what we're saying is that working groups aren't working I you know they're not for working for the for information exchange now I get I don't care what we call them but let's not confuse things by saying oh but you can create something and there's no policing involved if you want to produce a deliverable create a task force there's nothing stopping a working group or any collection of people on the planet from creating a task force none and and so I don't know why we're going through hoops to sort of say yeah but working groups can still produce something true create a task force have it be a hundred percent inclusion of all the people in the working group I don't it doesn't matter but it's a different thing it's the thing that we're looking at as producing artifacts not working groups and again when we think about this you also have to think about are we going to be monitoring working group you know status and composition and all those things I don't know that that really matters anymore other than you know maybe once in a while they're going to need to have somebody else lead the thing and they'll come to the TSC but it should be the thing that we're tracking is stuff that's getting done and how well it's tracking to that so we track task force is not working groups since working groups aren't producing anything they're just all right thank you Chris you made that clear then did you does that convince you or let me give you a counter example so in the DCI working group we have a few deliverables that we're working on one of them is this community survey so it'd be kind of weird when that's one of our main things that we spend our time on to separately spin out a task force that is essentially the exact same thing as the constituency of the DCI working group and then spin out another task force when we have our next deliverable because this is an example you're going set but you're making my point for me I mean so what what how is that going to be at all in invasion or in intrusion into your into into the work you're doing just submit us a request saying hey we'd like to create this task force of stuff that we're already doing and the TSC goes how many and you're done why would I bother doing that we've already we already chartered that work like okay so here's the thing then let's just cancel this whole thing all together because it's stupid to have an argument about whether or not we're producing anything in working groups and then say yeah but you can still produce stuff I think the point of having some sort of governance is that we avoid situations where there's poorly reviewed work so if we had a group that wanted to issue some sort of artifact that was okay and then let's call them special working groups or task okay guys I can see both sides of this I mean you know in Dan's opinion it's like in that case he's describing going through the process of creating a task force just seems to be a stupid administrative burden and why do we need this and I you know I will say I think we're clearly setting an expectation with the task force it doesn't really hurt to say well you know not to say anything about the fact that working groups in some cases might decide to produce something but we might need then to have something to say well how do we control what comes out of it somebody monitoring their baby monitor or something there it's going on there's a pumping I hear the pumping too I think one of the issues here is we're proposing that the work groups would not have quarterly reports and governance you know the current governance by the TSC they'd still be under the TSC but they wouldn't be required to do quarterly reports and things therefore if they want to do a deliverable then you need you know there's no way to report on that right so I think you know and that's what the task force would be so we're saying working groups wouldn't have quarterly reports and things like that where a task force would be required to give ongoing reporting so this is Troy I think I'm still in the same thought as last week that there should be clear separation so I kind of agree with what Chris is saying and I'm not so convinced that if there's going to be deliverables that there wouldn't be governance so I think it's pick one like have governance and deliverables or don't have either okay let's hear from other people anyone else feeling strongly one way another from this is like that from the perspective of the DCI working group I I was actually thinking that this task force would help some of the deliverables because I felt like having some more outside governance could get some of the work done for example our survey has kind of been lagging for the last like month and having a task force and having I feel like would maybe kind of enforce some deadlines or some kind of urgency to get things done at a certain time and having a working group I mean the DCI working group is a little different maybe because it's constantly going to be picking new deliverables each quarter and maybe how we define a task force is slightly different in that situation but I feel like there's some value to having a governing kind of thing on the deliverable rather than the group all right so yes yes I have to interrupt for a second I'm getting a thing from zoom that I'm trying to fix but for some reason it's saying that I don't have a paid account but when I go to validate I do have a paid account but it's claiming it might end the meeting in five minutes so if that happens I will try to reopen the meeting but check the TSC chat list if that happens because that's where we'll have to roll things over to if I can't get the zoom back up so sorry but zoom's been behaving weirdly as of yesterday and I don't know what's going on okay thanks for letting us know that is right I'm trying to fix it but it's you know just I don't want everybody to suddenly get cut off and you know four and a half minutes and go what the hell but I'm trying to fix it so okay somebody didn't like that discussion so if we get dropped would please hang hang around for another five minutes or so and then check on the TSC channel yes hi can you guys hear me now sorry we can thank you for Tracy so yeah so thanks Silona for letting us know hopefully we can keep going please do check the TSC channel in case we get dropped we'll try to resume within five minutes and if it doesn't work then we resume next week wherever we stop so let's get back to this working group proposal so we've heard a few people anybody else feeling strongly one way another I mean the burden I say you know I'll be biased but my proposal actually pretty much says that you know I don't know you're on mute again what does the proposal say sorry it's my phone is playing tricks on the so I was saying so the bias is towards the current proposal where working groups do not produce deliverables and if they want to do that they have to create a task force we heard from Dan that it's unlike that anybody else doesn't like that yes I do not like that because of the following reason currently even the quarterly reports do not get read I saw that identity working group quarterly report was put out one two weeks in advance and all I saw what three people from the TSC are reading it now you're proposing a governance structure in which you will examine the outputs from task forces which are probably going to be more than what is in the working group and you propose that you will handle it I somehow doubt it because of the performance of the people who are in the TSC don't get me wrong I respect you but you guys also have full-time jobs and you probably take a look at these things just before the meeting and hold on hold on Chris so my point is if you want to put this kind of governance on the task forces like hard stress make it very lightweight otherwise for trouble I have to admit I don't understand the report on the identity working group I don't know if we missed it it's you know it's an oversight you should have brought it up no no no you didn't miss it you you were one of the people who kicked off on it but several people hadn't I'm not blaming any one of them I'm just saying that look your workload is tremendous but what does that do with the task force and the working group because because the task force is going to produce outputs that you probably cannot check very in a very detailed manner that's what you're advocating that we don't do anything at all no no no I'm not advocating that but I think we're missing the fundamental point here and make I know you're on and I know you felt pretty strongly about this in the previous discussion the whole impetus for this discussion was to have the working groups be more relevant to what's going on in the projects and that you know having short-term focused task force you know working collaboratively on something that is ideally relevant to more than one project was the thing that we would use as a vehicle to encourage more and that working groups well they were being very effective at bringing people together and having conversations and discussions yeah we have just lost that whole half hour recording yeah I understand I'll sit there and see if I can find it somewhere on my hard drive but it didn't ask me to do the normal save-off that it normally asks people more is back on the hard drive when the meeting ends no matter how it ends I said a bunch of stuff and I probably was speaking to my no but we heard and you called on me to to chime in and that's where we left and then I said I spoke for about five minutes and so I got dropped even before that but again I mean the point here was to find a vehicle to encourage more collaboration on specific deliverables not on so you know again I think we're back at now square one because now you're saying well we still want to have working yeah I agree with that I mean it's a bit unsettling that you know we seem to have gone into a circle here so I hear you then that you know it feels like in some cases might just be an arbitrary burden and purely administrative but you know if we keep it simple enough within the TSE to get those things process it's pretty minor and might be worth the cost well what what is it that you get out of approval well for one thing I mean we have this notion of having a timeline that is set with an expectation of an outcome and a checkpoint that is set by that which we don't have with working groups and if we say working groups are in general just exchanging from you know information exchanger groups then there really is no way for us to say oh but now they are producing something we need to be aware of for you know so if I can just chime in here for just a second please number one the existing from the discussions we've had with the working group chairs have been doing this the most success that we've had in engaging people is when we focus on information exchanges on that in parallel the most success we've had in actually delivering things that have made appreciable impact on hyperledger has been through what we have been formally been calling task forces and all the proposals are doing is ratifying that what we've been doing in reality is the thing that we should be which is focus the working groups on the information exchange for the purpose of engaging projects more directly focus the task force on specifically on time limited deliverables where there's a beginning and an end and you can be held accountable for completing the task in the time that's it countable how it's the task forces that we have right now are all accountable to the TSC this is the way we've been doing it you have one of two choices you can either come back and extend and explain why you need an extension you know why are you not completing it and if lack of interest is the reason then okay we know what to do kill it right if it's not if it is if it's not done and there's no good reason then the task force should end and we have not been doing a job of that with work here so focus on a task limited time if it's not done in that limited time it's done just move on and then and the recharging this is really important because it does provide a sense of urgency for those who need to see the work done in the standards groups we worked on this trick helps tremendously at getting people off off the dime and getting them to provide the feedback they might know otherwise all right so given the time now I would like to move and either we're ready to to make a decision according to the current proposal or we have to postpone to next week and hope that in between people can beat each other up into into agreeing one way or another every decision does not have to be unanimous that's correct so I propose we we vote on the proposed on the proposal as set forward which which proposal there were three of them so no I said I'm asking for I think they cannot be combined because that's not where the issue is anyway the working we say no to A and B and yes to C I second that all right saying thank you mark so anybody in favor say hi anybody objecting okay then is what it does opposed anybody abstaining in none okay so it's here by approved thank you okay so we only have 15 minutes left I have two more discussion items there was the TSC election voter selection I don't want to get into this now what do what I do want to say so what I what what it says on the agenda is the short version of how things have been done for the last election according to Rai I basically prompted him after the call last week and I say so can we document what we've done so far and he said okay this is the short version we have give come commit crawler from Tracy we have nomination from the six and working groups and then people can sell self-nominated I I think then I actually commented and and try to separate the two main issues there is the there is an issue of you know who actually gets eligible to participate in the whole process and then there is the question of how we get contact information which I appreciate I think it's indeed a good separation I my take on this is this is the current process and the default resolution is the current process and I I would say anybody who wants to change this the status quo as the burden to to make a motion basically to say no I think this is how we should do it instead can we agree to this to this process to move forward on this issue so people can comment on the wiki as to how did rather do it what they don't like in this current way of doing it we already agreed by the way that the nomination would not be done by Google form anymore we said we would do that through the mailing list you've have to post to the mailing list say hey I self-dominate for the TSE election it doesn't talk about I think I know the self-nomination is self-nomination if you think you had a commit that wasn't counted rather than self-nomination to the TSE election thank you for the clarification yeah and we we had a form for this that people use I think in the past we did have a form this time yep okay okay so that's the process so again I just want to you know agree on the approach rather than you know I think we're confusing things I think the issue this time this last election was we had a form not the self-nomination where previous years everyone would send mail to the TSE list self-nominating no no but again we're we're Tracy clarified the self-nomination by Google form that this is about is about you know if you want to be added to the list of voters which you know not not to the list of candidates for the TSE which is a separate form okay all right I don't need anybody yes I was going to say I think we have some people on from Bezu do we want to cover that yes that's why I wanted to not go deeper than that on this issue now so we have had this request filed a few weeks ago now from the Bezu team on on their desire to move their project from incubation into active status there was a fairly extensive well put together I have to say you know request put on the on the wiki and it generated a lot of comments and questions some of which have been answered some of which seems to be pending and you know as I've yet to be answered so I thought we could use some time and we only have 10 minutes left but let's please use those 10 minutes to try to see if we can move forward I do have to say and I put an extensive comment along those lines that you know I was a bit surprised this came that early although the Bezu team mentioned that intention early on when they made their initial proposal for the project I had already pointed out there would be a challenge to do that quickly and and you know as far as I'm concerned the challenge remains and it's been commented by several people that you know there is a problem with the regard to the diversity in terms of control of the project all the maintainers are basically from Pegasus and this you know there's this question we have used before you know and said well essentially if one company if the project would not survive a single organization walking away that's a bad sign right and active status has nothing to do with we had extensive discussions on that in the past has nothing to do with the the maturation the maturity of the product they are developing but really the maturity of the community the project and so how it's organized how is everything set up and whether there is actually diversity in the community and it's a fully fledged community that's functioning and it's often been the challenge for many projects you know to achieve to meet that criteria because we often have project that gets started from one company or a couple and then it's hard to grow from there even with all the good intentions so I think you know this is a point that needs to be addressed from that point of view I don't think it's fair to to to put it up for a vote I don't honestly don't think that the Bezu project really qualifies for this the point has been made by civil TSC members we could have a vote down just for the sake of it but I don't think that serves any purpose I'd rather have a discussion and I think Grace actually commented saying well you know could you please tell us exactly what we need to do to to be able to qualify if we don't which I think is a fair question although there is a set of executia that we have defined and of course you know they have they there is always room for interpretation right because if you read the request they think they qualify and they are you know an answer to all the questions but there was another point I wanted to make which was I don't know but now so I'll leave it alone anything else anything else anybody Gary sounded like he had wanted to say something at the beginning rejoinder Gary definitely wanted to say and I'm sure that's why he's frustrated not to be able to be on the call but we usually have other opinionated people so I'm happy to hear from anyone or from anyone from the Bezu team who might be on the call and wants to speak up Hey Erno this is Grace and I'll get you to see just wanted to I guess point out that we're on the call and thank you first for everyone being very thoughtful and asking really great questions to the proposal um just wanted to call out so we have kind of three different organizations from Bezu on the call right now um so just to help kind of run up the discussion that way so myself um Daniel Heyman and Dan O'Farran from Pegasus, Antony from Danier from Web3Labs and then Bob Summerwell from ATC Cooperative uh so just wanted to I guess uh you know we kind of have these two organizations kind of I think there were a couple of outstanding points that you kind of hinted at with um you know our request and what we're looking for to kind of help us uh make the progression to active status so uh I think the couple of outstanding points as of a few weeks ago was the Jira board migration which is uh the Jira tickets have all been moved to the Hyperledger Jira board uh as of last week we currently have the um Pegasus one just staying open until the next week or so to make sure the transition is as smooth as possible and and nothing gets missed but everything was moved as at this point and then the other one so diversity around the project so just wanted to say that we have um now as of yesterday conveniently enough uh EGC and Bob was providing some context on uh their work and kind of their kind of becoming the third organization there so I think yeah just kind of what I was saying happy to answer any questions you'll have but um the only strict requirement uh that I could see around diversity was the three organizations which we now have um so if there's a way to help us kind of there's a percentage if there's a way to help us kind of meet that requirement in a different way that's not listed in the uh in the exit criteria that would be really helpful so that's I think that's what we're looking for this morning but anyway I'll open the floor for questions okay thank you I remember the the second point I wanted to bring up which also is related to the governance aspects of the project which is key to this active status as I was saying and I had noticed that in going through the Gita brief of the the project that there was this governance document that basically stated you had the you had the dictatorship model and um can I speak on that? a benevolent dictator and I don't know what happened because I raised that and nobody answered can I speak on it to that point yes please so that was from the previous iteration when we moved over we forgot to clean that document up when you pointed it out we deleted it immediately okay so that's good to know um anyone else any questions so Chris I know sorry go ahead Tracy no no worries uh so can can you comment on like when Orion is uh something that you guys are planning to bring over type or ledger if you are planning to meet over maybe you're not planning on it and I think that was a question that I saw that I don't know a lot of conversation around it first off Orion is the piece that provides confidentiality basu does not need Orion operate in an enterprise context to get the permission list and the permission ledgers all I need to do is change the consensus algorithms and basu has right now three main consensus algorithms the proof of work the click which is a proof of authority which uh enterprises use and the ibf tv2 which enterprises use so we provide all the same functionality described in the architecture white paper that's needed for a permission network got whitelisting a lot of the other things what Orion brings in is the um off ledger storage um with confidentiality by way of only sharing with a few select parties and that's not a requirement for an enterprise level um enterprise level uh blockchain so basically it's complete right now as we're bringing Orion over um it's something that we've talked about we haven't committed to it yet but the one thing we did decide we wanted to go through was we wanted to get the basic code base in we want to see what the bumps were what the process was before we try to bring too much in because if we tried to it's like you know how to get an elephant through a door you get it in one leg at a time so we need to make sure that we get everything in first um before we start bringing the other pieces and you know there were some pretty big bumps just getting the basic code base in a lot of things like like JIRA and Circle CI integrations so a lot of that's driving why we didn't just bring everything in at once we wanted to get small pieces in the words completely yeah and if I can just jump in and add to that Orion is just one mechanism by which you can achieve confidentiality on Beisu there are zero knowledge proof based approaches that are compatible there are conversations about integrating third party private transaction managers and off-chain privacy approaches into Beisu so it feels a little like one one of the reasons for caution is it feels a little strange to focus on integrating Orion and putting it in a different class from these other privacy approaches all right thank you so I actually I was going to ask about this I know Chris I'd ask about this so thanks Tracy this is the question yeah I I think the other question obviously is around diversity of maintainers I think uh you know originally we had one maintainer who was not from Pegasus and all the other ones were from Pegasus and so I mean to me that still implies that this project is dependent on Pegasus remaining viable if you will right because one maintainer cannot take on everything that exists especially when they're only focused on kind of the privacy aspects of things so uh I know you guys mentioned Bob is he becoming a maintainer is that like a second out of the you know 25 or so folks who are going to be non Pegasus maintainers or is Bob just starting to contribute short to go you know I don't know if you want to speak to our maintainer process but so yeah I think Bob would chime in talking about ETC cooperative I don't want to speak for ETC co-op I was hello I can I can certainly speak um yeah I mean to be fair we only have one minute left but you can start and I'm happy to you know to bring it up next week we can continue the discussion obviously it was disrupted today so but go ahead if you want to say something it looks like Bob dropped off well there he is hello I'm black can you hear me yes um so yeah I'll be very quick um chain safe have been uh doing the work for ETC support it's pretty much pretty much finished just finishing on the upstreaming the plan moving forward is ETC co-op is committed to this code base forever uh whatever Pegasus does um you know in the majority we would be uh you know having contractors doing the work as opposed to doing it ourselves because there's just two of us we are both engineers but we don't have time um you know uh capacity may be built up within the co-op or we may just give grants to other people to do work as needed um but irrespective of the way it works um you know that that's something that will be a long-term commitment forever all right thank you I apologize I've really a hard stop and so I have to close the call on this but obviously this discussion will carry on thank you all today for joining talk to you next week and bye