 floor is yours. Hello everyone, welcome to the TSE call, so-called weekly although we're skipping Tongue. I think you're not muted. I'm sorry. So this is a public meeting. Everybody is welcome to join and contribute. There are two requirements though. The first one is to be aware and live by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is currently being displayed, otherwise linked or actually embedded in the agenda. So if you're not aware of this one, please look and make yourself knowledgeable. The other piece is the code of conduct which requires everybody to behave in a decent manner. Oh, in passing, I do want to point out that the code of conduct we have is based on the version of the direct receipt code of conduct. And the direct receipt is actually in the process of revising their code of conduct to address a few issues that they have found exercising their code of conduct. So it's been put up for approval to the membership, and I intend to bring it up to the TSE when that is done. I assume it will just get through, but let's wait to see that, you know, it's actually been approved by the direct receipt, and then we can consider maybe upgrading ours accordingly. I know that other people were involved in different organizations. I've said, yeah, I think this is good improvement. I will push it further into other organizations I'm involved in, and so I thought I should do the same. So that's just the heads up. And, you know, it doesn't change drastically anything. It tries to clarify a few things that people have found not so clear in the way it was worded in the first place. So I think it's probably a good improvement that we'll also want to adopt. So with that done, let's get started with the meeting. First, I don't know of any announcement, but I want to give everybody an opportunity. Is there any announcement anyone wants to make? That would be a good time. Just a request on the last thing that you mentioned. If you have a link to the draft text, if you wouldn't mind sending that to the DCI list or to the TSE list, that'd be great. Yes. Yeah, yeah. So that's for the cut of conduct. I will definitely do that. Happy to do that. Thank you. So announcements, anything else? All right, hearing none. Let's move on. There were two quarterly reports submitted, filed, transact and chelon. Neither of them pointed out any issues. I didn't see any comments on the reports. Do people have comments? So any issues they want to raise now? Otherwise, we'll just move forward. I didn't see anything on the reports themselves, and they've been reviewed by the majority of the TSE members. So I think we can just assume they have not raised any concerns. I didn't put it in the comment section, but like I don't find like the maintainers are the same as the original project proposal. I don't really find useful to me as I review this because I don't remember what every project had for their project proposal and who the maintainers were. Yeah, I hear you. I have to admit the same thought crossed my mind when I saw that. So this is for the transact report, right? I think it was a transact one. Yes, it's just, you know, am I being lazy? Probably. But at the same point, I don't want to have to go back and look up to history of each one and compare to previous months and stuff. Yeah, and in fact, I thought the same and it's like, at least if there was a link to the original, you would be able to just click and say, okay, I see what that is. But going to an efficient expedition is not much fun. So I think this is worth bringing out. But probably worth a comment to the report mark. I'm sure they'll respond. You can say just at least put a link to the list. I think this is one place where if we can standardize the maintainers.md format to potentially also reflect diversity, perhaps some of some tags per maintainer around however they would prefer to describe their different characteristics. That might be a way of automatically reporting this number and, you know, apples for apples with other projects. Yeah, that's true. This is actually part of the posed update in the next discussion item. Yes. Yeah, we are going to talk about maintainers next. So all right, anything else on the reports? Otherwise, yeah, this is Chris. So I've tried now three times to get in to the wiki and check myself off. I can load the pages, but I can't log in. And this has happened multiple times in the last couple days when I've been trying to weigh in on these things. I don't know what there is, you know, Roddy, if there's an issue with LF log in or something, but. So what I heard this morning, and this surprised me, this doesn't affect me for whatever reason, my browser choice isn't affected, but Mark pointed out that when she tried with Firefox, it was very fast. And if you look in the console, you'll see that there are a bunch of errors that happened very quickly. And with Chrome and Safari, they seem to happen much, much slower. And I'm using Firefox, so it maybe explains it. So I'm using Firefox and I can't log in this morning either. So, right, I don't know. This is inviting me if this was actually happening. I mean, I did see some mention from LFIT that Auth0, the service was having some issues, which is something we use for single sign-on. That was affecting Jira, the LF sound Jira a few days ago. I wonder if some of those, because it's happening to me now too, but it wasn't happening before. This feels new to me. And this is on Firefox. Right. So I don't know. I can file a ticket, perhaps if I can log in to Jira. I can shake that tree in Slack. Yeah, we'll chase this down, Chris. Yeah, it's just, it's annoying. I mean, Firefox is my primary browser, just because supposedly IBM is optimizing to Firefox, so. That's good news. But I had reloaded three times and finally got through. So I'm gonna, I'll chase this down personally. Yeah, I did get through for one of them. Yeah, so I mean, I've been able to do the transact ones. So the, I guess what I was saying wasn't clear. The Firefox is the browser that's working for Marta and not Chrome and not Safari. And so that's why I'm surprised that you guys are having these issues with Firefox. I'm sorry that you guys are having these issues with LFIT. So I promise I'll look into it. I'm not sure what's going on. Okay. Yeah, no, I'm not. Hey, I just logged in with Chrome and I use Firefox and it worked for me. But so I suspect it's not related, but we'll check in on that. There may, there may be a problem. It's been noted. Let's move on. Yeah. All right. So let's get to the discussion items. The first one is the common maintainers management policy. So Tracy put together a pull request and several of us have commented. I've seen a few people, actually quite a few now. It's funny how important those calls are because it clearly motivates people to do their homework. And all of a sudden there's a kind of an avalanche of people who've approved the pull request. So that's good. If anything, the call will have served that purpose. I think there is like one question that I know we've said, I mean, Tracy and I were discussing something and then, you know, she said, well, maybe we can bring that up to the TSE. So I figured we could discuss this now. I think overall we're in pretty good shape. There is one important aspect is, you know, seems like there's general consensus on making it fairly liberal in the sense that it's really guidelines, you know, it's guidelines and people can, you know, adjust as they see fit. But at least, you know, if people don't have to reinvent everything, which I think is often the reason for disparities from one project to another, one particular question that I did get raised is the question of whether the policy should be included in the maintainers file or can it be linked from the maintainers file? Personally, I think it's a fairly small issue, obviously. But it's whether, as you keep scrolling down, you'll find it right. Personally, I think it's important that people can find the policy. And so I think maintainers file, we all have a maintainers file. It's part of the common repo structure. We've discussed, you know, there's some kind of like guidelines on what you should be able to find in there. And I think you should find your way to the policy from there. Whether the policy itself is embedded in the maintainers file or it's linked from it, I really don't care. I think both are acceptable. So that's my point of view. But, you know, I'll let others speak if they feel strongly one way or another. I mean, like right now, the fabric project has it as part of the documentation. And so I think it is an easy fix is to add a link to the maintainer, to the from the maintainers file to the documentation and they would be compliant. Otherwise, they will have to copy it. And then there's the question where do you get duplicated? It's in the doc and the maintainers file. You remove it from the doc. It's a bit miss. So I think adding the ability to have a link is add flexibility. But, you know, if I'm the minority here, I can go either way. So he's kind of voted along with Tracy. I don't have a vote, but I'm in favor of a link for reasons that will become clear shortly. OK, anyone else? Do people work offline at all? Like, would they download to get repo and stuff and then go work offline and suddenly not be able to get to a link? And urgently, urgently need to know that policy. Well, it's just a general comment. I don't know about you, but this is very little I can't do nowadays offline, but. Well, my internet goes down a lot. So I work offline a lot. I'm ambivalent. I think what Tracy said that, you know, should already provide some flexibility. So if the way that you implement that field is you put a link in, that seems fine too. OK. So that's another vote in favor of flexibility. I think we would allow a link. I don't have a vote either, but I'm with Ryan on this one. I think a link will make things nicer. I think the flexibility is a good idea and that we'll see a convention emerge and we don't have to decide on every detail of that convention now. OK, so it seems like there is general consensus towards allowing a link. So anybody opposing it? We don't need to have a formal vote. I think if it's enough to enlighten the discussion and the direction and then we can just update the PR to accommodate for the link. I'm in favor of whatever involves the least amount of continued discussion. OK. What does that really mean, Chris? We get to the bottom of how we. I'm with you, Chris. I, you know, I wish we didn't have enough to discuss this in this poll, just to be clear. Sorry, I was offline. What did I miss? Yeah. So, Tracy, do you want do you want this squashed and merged? Or do you personally want to do like a squash commit? Or what do you prefer, Tracy? I don't have any preference. If you want to hit that button, Rai, you go ahead and hit that button. I wish the button. Yeah, I was giving the two weeks to it. All right. No, but it's hard. Yeah. All right. Yoink. There we go. That is nice. OK. Next on the agenda. Wait, I'm confused. Why did you do this now? We just said we would allow to have a link. Does the text say that? I think we should. Yeah, the word should is in there, right? We couldn't have the flexibility, especially if we like the flexibility. All requests accepted. Come on now. All right. I'll make another poll request to say. There you go. But that's fine. Don't worry about it. As I was saying, in case people didn't hear me in the chaos, that I wish we didn't have to discuss any of this on the call. I only put it on the agenda because progress was not happening offline. So, all right. The next piece is similar, but it's the... So we have to thank Rai, put a lot of effort into porting basically the documents, the governing documents that were on the wiki onto the Github repo for the TSE. And as I mentioned in my email last week, when I was canceling the call, that it's not just quite direct copy paste because it kind of... We have made decisions that were not necessarily reflected in some of the wiki pages. And that's part of the effort. It's to consolidate everything. And so there are things like on the wiki, we talked about the first major release. And then earlier we said, hey, we are going to drop that and now we talk about promoted release. And so we had a decision somewhere that's in the TSE decision log that says that, but it was not reflected in the documentation. So as we are porting to the Github repo, we are making those changes to effectively reflect all the decisions that have been made. So there is a bit of massaging involved and I want to make sure everybody's in sync and is in agreement with what's there. So I don't know of any issues at this point. The pull request has been up for a while. Several of us have commented. Thank Tracy for a lot of comments and helping, you know, move the ball forward and right for responding to all our comments and just keeping on updating this PR. So we have today four approvals. So we are far from the 11 members having looked into it and approved. And it'd be nice to have at least a majority because it's kind of like the documents we're going to live by. And my expectation is once we have landed this PR, we will then go to the Wiki and say, hey, this page no longer exists or have a link to the document in here instead. So before we pull the trigger, I wanted to give people a chance to raise any concerns here or at least to say, hey, okay, never mind. Go ahead. You can merge it. Of course, none of this is cast in stone cannot be changed. We will keep evolving it, but it'll be good since it's kind of the first effort to consolidate. It'll be nice. Does the Wiki allow us to pull something from Git and display it? In other words, when someone's first coming to see what Hyperledge is about and they're trying to read these documents, we immediately send them to Git, right? That's what we're indeed doing. There is a way to include an external web page in Confluence if you want to do that. We also have an option which would be a redirect or something of that nature. I don't have strong feelings about it. How would it work with things like Google searches and stuff like that if it's all in Git? It's not going to get found, right? Where if it's on our Wiki page, it might get searched or do we not allow that for Hyperledge? I have not done anything to prevent Google from creating an index. I haven't done it, right? So let's find out, right? I mean, there you go, 319 results. So that tells me that the Wiki is indexed. OK. And I do want to point out that I made, I guess I had an internal argument about this. Would it have been better to use Pandoc to make a direct port and then do a subsequent PR to actually do the fixing or to do it all at once? I made the editorial decision to do it all at once. There were a number of very small English errors and stuff like that that I fixed. And then there were a lot of wording errors like Tracy and Arno and I had it back and forth. So yeah, I don't think there were any structural changes, but there were a lot of English changes. In particular, let's see, there was discussion in the project lifecycle, which was kind of nonsense that needed to be fixed up. I think Dan pointed that out, that there was a repeated paragraph here that was talking about some stuff that needed to go away. And so it's gone. Incubation executor. Yeah. And I also removed a bunch of discussion around Garrett. There are a lot of references to Garrett or. And so Garrett is in the past. And so it's gone. You win, Dan. You win. Get up one. So it's not just a straightforward of the documents. But I think you made the right choice in going beyond just a simple port as the first step. Everybody look at that and do more PRs on top. We don't need that. We have the wiki that will still be there. And you can look at the history there if you really care. So the whole point is consolidating this documentation. So that's what we are doing. So anyway, I don't want necessarily to spend more time on this now. I just want to, again, highlight this is important. This is ongoing. And people should have a look and approve it if they're OK with it. I don't think there is any reason for any concerns. But maybe in reviewing, you will find other glitches that should be improved on. But OK. All right. Let's move on, then. Hopefully we can get enough approval soon to be able to emerge this. Yeah. So the next item is project proposals. So, Rai, you went on and put our names, and which has this with a checkbox, which adds it to a list of tasks in the wiki, to a bunch of files, some of which I have to admit even though they had been there for a while, I was not aware of. And some of them seem really old and should be disposed of in one way or another and not be in there anymore. Sure. And part of that was that it was pointed out that I think it was the second one here. There's no code development platform. It was pointed out that this didn't show up. And that was because it wasn't tagged. And it also was using the previous format where this list came through with nothing, with a bunch of errors. So I fixed this, and then I looked to see if there were any other items in the project proposal list that also didn't have a tag and also didn't have the TSC membership on. And that's where the Solidity that was never disposed of, and I think the multi-language documentation is the other one. So if the TSC just wants me to drag those into 2019 finish proposals, I'm totally fine with that. Just tell me how it is you want to handle that stuff. Yeah, that's why I wanted to bring it up now. So the multi-language clearly is being taken care of. It's happening anyway, right? So this one is really old. It was just sitting there. We have different efforts going on to handle translations of the fabric documentation. I think they should just put to rest. Yeah, so this is from August of last year. So does anyone that has a vote care other than Argo? I mean, we commented, and there was no reaction from the submitter, right? Oh, wait. Yeah, I'm fine sweeping them to the reviewed or finished whatever. Actually, no, there is an answer now. They said we've decided to use GitHub to maintain fabric documents. So we can just close this. Excellent. So then there's the no-code development platform one. I think there is a company behind this. They seem to be eager to bring there what they call a product to Hyperledger. Several of us have commented now. For now, they have not made their code available at all. So there's no reason to jump the gun here. I think we should keep having the discussion on the Wiki page with the submitter and see where that goes. It's not clearly obvious to me how this would actually fit within Hyperledger, although the technology seems to be within our scope, for sure. But they don't seem to be certain they want to bring it here either, and they haven't even open sourced it yet. So there's, I think, quite a few steps they need to work on before they can bring it. I believe I'm talking to this individual later today myself, just personally. So I'll try to sort that out. Yeah, just coincidentally. All right, well, that's good news. Great. OK, and the last one is the Solang Solidi compiler, which we have talked about. And they basically have really put in on hold for now. So that one, if as far as I'm concerned, could stay here, we could just move it, and they'll be resurrected when, you know, if that happens, if they want to, the TSC to reconsider it. This one was created though in 2020, right? So it shouldn't be moved to 2019. Yeah, Sean gave us an update, and I thought that we sort of suggested that he needed to get a little bit more people working in the lab. And then I think if you look at the TSC decision log, you'll see there was an item open for this, and it has been tagged as withdrawn, temporarily withdrawn by the author. The question is, what do we do with that file now? So we create a 2020 finished proposals, and we go ahead and put this in there. And he's going to create a new proposal in the future. Right. Probably makes sense. Sounds good to me. OK, all right. Thank you. I'll take care of that. All right, so back to the agenda. We have one more item. Thank you, Dave, for adding this. TSC election plan. Yeah, so what you can see there if you go there. The problem is, hold on. The link doesn't work for me. I click on Timeline, it goes to a page not found. Yeah, that happened to me too. Renamed the page. Yeah, so the issue is it's in our private workspace, and here it has to move it out. Yeah, can everyone see it on the screen? Here, I can also paste it into. Yeah, OK, I see it right. Yeah, or once Dave moves it, it'll, you know, whatever. We'll make this public, I promise. I just don't want to. But I understand what you're saying. That makes sense. So that's not a problem right now. Let's look at the content. OK, I just put it into the agenda. So if you refresh your agenda, they're there. OK. And it's also going to land in the minutes. So, so Ryan and I were talking over the last month or so, that it'd be nice to get, get thinking about the election coming up. The changes that have happened over policy, you know, since the last one is that the election has been moved to October so that we're not rushing as everybody comes back from summer break, although this year, obviously summer break is somewhat in question. So anyway, I put together a timeline for us, roughly on how this is going to go. The one thing I want to call out is that nothing is really going to change. We're going to be running the eligibility script that Tracy wrote a couple years ago, the second half of August. And then I've been working on a small little web service that will be able to stand up that will allow people to go and punch in their email address and submit it. And it will come back and tell you if that email address is in our list of eligible voters. It's our plan for exposing the list of eligible voter emails without exposing the whole list, right? Everybody can individually go and confirm whether their email address that they've used for contributions is in our list. So other than that, this is the timeline we're planning to execute this fall. And I just wanted to let you guys know. Does this mean that the contributions between October 30th and October, I'm sorry, August 30th and October 1st are not eligible? Or when is the eligibility cut off? That's a really good question. I would imagine that it just should cut off on October 4th, right, when voting begins. So I don't mean to imply that we'll stop running this script. I think the idea here was that at the end of August was when we were going to fill the initial list. So I'm fine with cutting it off at August 30th. I mean, you don't need to just create a bunch of busy work from last minute contributions. Those contributions will still count for the following election. And we've been going with August before. So I agree with Dan. If you want to take a decision, I'll move. And Dan, you want a second? We feel like we need to vote on that. Vice versa? Yeah. You go ahead and move it. What exactly is the proposal? I move that we set the cut off date for contributions counting towards being eligible to be elected as of August 30th. And voting, right? Yep. I'll take a minute. And August 30th. Just out of curiosity, why August 30th, not August 31st? There's 31 days in August. Whatever. 31. We're going to get 31. I guess someone didn't pay attention during first grade. Thank you for your contribution, Gary. So my question is, does this mean that we're going to have a slightly, we're going to have 13 months, right? Is that the question that you're asking, Tracy? I was asking specifically about the end date for eligibility. I would assume that the begin date for eligibility is whatever the last day was of the last cut off. Yeah. Or the day after the last day of the cut off, however you want to say that. Right. So there's a larger window for this election, because we're making the election later. And then the year after. OK, I just want to make sure I was accurately understanding what it was you were asking. Yeah, no, I was curious about the end date of the eligibility. But I do think it's worthwhile to put in, like, what is the eligibility range, right? So that people understand what this vote is representing. Noted. I will mark that here. OK, you just want to point it out. August 30th is the Sunday. 31st is a Monday. So if you want to count the weekend, it might be a reason, but just wanted to point it out. Well, that will vary from year to year, right? So I don't know if it matters. But thanks. Yeah. So do we have to launch rocket chat? Do you want me to put in the chat what I'm doing? Yeah, that's probably a good idea. Well, Dave, you got through me. Didn't we move a lot of this to their discretion and not require votes by the TSC? Yeah, this was not really asking for a move. But although Chris makes a good point of setting the cutoff, this is something we haven't addressed yet officially. So I'm good either way. Just go ahead and work that in to the official document. And if we feel like we need a vote after all the details are finalized, then we can take a vote. Yeah, but that's a good point. And that was the decision we made previously, right? We said the team would come up with the plan, present it to the TSC for approval before we execute. So. OK, well, then this will come up in the agenda next week. I'll have more formal page. I'll have the page in the right place on the Wiki so you guys can all see it and we'll take a roll call vote. I had a couple questions. So there's a month before we close voting and we actually vote. Yeah, which question? So we're not doing anything in September. That's intentional. I was just wondering about first grade and the months. I know Gary doesn't always get them right. The other question I had was I think one of the things we had discussed after last year's voting is the voting happens in one week. And if people are out for that week, they might not vote. And we had talked about maybe splitting the vote up. Still keep it a week long, but split it up over a two week increment. Or October 4th is Monday and the 10th is, or it's like it goes Sunday to Saturday or something like that. So I just didn't know how people felt about that. I think it was tougher last year when we were doing it in the middle of summer vacations. Right, that's why we moved it to October. OK, I guess my point was I didn't know if we wanted to run over two different calendar weeks, but still only be a week long. So I started on the 7th and ended on the 13th or something. It's up to you guys. It's calling. OK, I'm taking these questions down. I'll move this page over in the wiki and I'll send the link out to the TSE list and we'll discuss these there, I guess. I'll make sure I bring up these questions. And we'll. Thank you. Yeah. Sounds good. I think the other question or comment that I have is twofold. One, do we put in here about the election of the TSE chair and vice chair? And then secondly, do we put the date effective for the next TSE? Because I know we've always had this issue of we publish the results and there's like this question of once the results are published is the new TSE taking on the responsibility or is the previous TSE taking on the responsibility? So I guess that's just a couple of other things to think through. Yeah. Good questions. I was arguing. I propose that the TSE term ends on the 31st of December. And so the whatever we pick. The 29th of February. Ooh. Are we going to have an inauguration or anything? I think that what we did last year or this past year, I should say, is that we agreed that it would take the effects the following week, right? Because we needed to get people set up for the mailing list and everything notified. And so after the vote, we had one more meeting of the existing TSE. We invited the others to come and participate. But they didn't formally begin their term until the following week. Right. Because after the public announcement of the election, then there's like a week-long period of the TSE voting their people in. So there has to, oh, there doesn't have to. There's no law of physics. But it would be easier if there was like one meeting grace period. Yeah. So I think we should continue that. That's the sort of thing. There's got to be some grace period because you also need to have the chair election. You need some time for this. Otherwise, you have a TSE call where possibly, say, the chair is not being re-elected at all on the TSE. What do you do? You chair less. So I propose that publisher and then whatever the next Thursday is, that would be the existing TSE and then the following week would be the new one. So in this case, we would publish on the 10th then that transition meeting where it's both the old and the new would happen on the 15th. And then the new TSE would take over their first meeting on the 22nd of October. Just looking at the calendar. So in the past, you give a week for the TSE members to decide whether they want to run for chair. And then there's supposed to be another week for the vote of the chair, right? So I just feel like there's kind of additional two weeks. And I'm not sure that based on the dates that you're telling me if it's the 11th and the 15th that gives you the two weeks that you want. Well, the other way to make this line up on the calendar is if we just said the new TSE takes over the 1st of November, that gives us like a solid three weeks at the end of October to transition to have their, get everybody on the mailing list, have their chair elections, have the handover meetings and all that stuff. I mean, that's the other way to look at this. Okay guys, we don't need to figure out all the details right now. I think this discussion is helpful because it kind of gives the staff food for thoughts. I trust they can take that and bring us back a plan that would make sense. We can look at it and comment and then figure it out if there is problems. And I would appreciate if what we bring back is considered to be probably the final version. I don't think we want to have a lot of minutiae discussion about each item individually. We will on the TSE mailing list. And then next week hopefully we'll have them all hammered out. I won't bring it back to this meeting until we've got them all hammered out. Yeah, I was really happy to get past the porting of the documents discussion without any cabitzing about the fonts that I had chosen. So I was surprised. All right, just wait for the PRs. Bring it, that's all I can say, man, bring it. All right, thank you for your time and attention on the election thing. You've got to love how the TSE members love getting into the gorities of those discussions that are not dictical that everybody thinks we shouldn't spend time on. Anyway, is there any other idea that people want to throw in just for food for thoughts for the staff on that issue? Don't encourage that. Okay, so given that we're done with this, let's move on. I think that's the end of the agenda. Is there anything else anybody wants to bring up on this call now? Good answers. I think that since this was merged, this should be approved, right? Oh, yes, yes, I think we can mark that as approved. All right, we can do that later. I want to close the call now. It seems like we have ran out of items and I'm happy to give everybody back 15 minutes. So, let's close this call on this. Thank you all for joining. We'll see if we have a call next week or not. Arnaud. Thank you. We don't want to do the project update. No, we went through this quickly. There was no questions, so that's it. Thank you for submitting your report. Great, thanks. There is a question in the group chat. The next one in two weeks, question mark and the answer is no. The decision, I think, was to not move this to a two-week lead. No, that's right. Just to clarify, in case there are people who are confused, we are officially still on a weekly calendar, a weekly schedule. And I may cancel it, depending on whether there's enough to make it worthwhile or not, but you shouldn't assume it will be in two weeks. It might be next week. Well, makes sense. Thank you.