 Okay, can we get the agenda? Thank you. Okay, welcome everybody. Good morning, good afternoon, good evening. Good night. So on the agenda today we've got our usual Hackfest update, but we don't have an update. It's still pending. We have a training working group proposal from Tracy that had a little bit of conversation on the mailing list between she and I. I don't know if anybody else has any thoughts on that, but maybe Tracy we can just sort of review that and have a discussion. And we've got Hyperledger Quilt, which is the interledger protocol proposal. And I saw Adrian on I think. Yeah. And so I think we're ready for a vote on that because I know it's been a few weeks since it was, you know, discussed a couple of times and there was discussion on the mailing list but I haven't seen any in the past week. So I think we're probably ready to approve that one and Hyperledger chain code design a proposal we will defer because they is not on the call. Not able to join us today and and then we will just a brief update from Tracy on the project reporting and some lucky person like me gets to go first. Any other any other items for the agenda today? Okay, hearing none. I think Tracy take it off with the training proposal. Sure. So, as we talked about in the at the Chicago heckfest. We decided that a training working group was something that we wanted to kick off inform us to capture things like educational material and presentations and things that people could actually use to, you know, do training courses for the different Hyperledger projects. So, with that I put to the mailing list a proposed charter. As Chris said, a couple of comments have come out that we should probably discuss here as a larger group and then really this is the scope of this was really just to make sure that we're developing training technical and non technical audiences for the projects that exist in the Hyperledger umbrella. And then basically, you know, as we need it, the working group could form small task forces to really go to go through and complete training materials for a particular topic or or topics as they deem fit. So the work products would include this was my initial list so obviously not limited to this but presentation, graphics, both still in motion type graphics webinars videos, self paced training instructor led training, which would include both presentation and labs. And then of course the working group would work with other working groups to TSE project maintainers to make sure that they're identifying any training needs that exist out there. Also making sure that they're working with the Hyperledger brand and marketing teams to ensure that what we're developing meets the brand and trademark guidelines. And so then really just the process was just what you would expect from any working group, making sure that we have an open emailing list email list or rocket chat channel, wiki page, holding meetings on a biweekly sort of basis. And as needed for the task forces to do the individual work that needs to be done. And then of course the what we'd be creating out of this is something that we would want to store in GitHub repository. And then we would have some maintainers that we would have to decide who those maintainers would be, and making sure that they're reviewed and approved by a minimum of two maintainers before we commit anything to the repository. Again, I think this is another area we want to talk about. And then, you know, all of this is pretty much what you would expect the rest of it so yeah that's that's what we have. So open for discussion. Thanks Tracy. So, I had sort of sent the first comment and that was really really great regarding the scope and suggesting that maybe we want to limit the scope to be active projects projects that have graduated from incubation. And you push back a bit on that saying we don't want to discourage work and I think I agree with that but by the same token. You know, I think we do you know we have the incubation process there for a reason right and And so, you know, again, I think it's, I don't think anybody wants to discourage people from creating training material for their, for their project that's not what I'm saying here I'm just saying if the if there's going to be a working group that's focused on helping to coordinate and develop material that, you know, for the organization as a whole and for the various projects that we should scope that work such that it's manageable and that, you know, one of the ways of achieving that is to limited to active projects because they've already demonstrated a certain degree of, you know, that they have they've established a community of contributors beyond the initial individual or company that contributed the, you know, the project in the first place. And, you know, they've met various other criteria for sustainability of the project and if we're going to invest in that it seems invest in training I should say it seems to me that we should invest in those projects that have already established. You know, that's that sort of level of sustainability. So I don't know what others think. Again, that's just my opinion. Yeah, I mean, Chris, this is ripping. Given that the working group will be on a purely voluntary basis. I mean, in terms of investing resources. People will invest resources in what they believe in right. So, if there is a bunch of people who want to create training material for something that is in incubation, they should be free to do that. It's my opinion, because Well, I mean, That's what I said, but not in the context of the working group again the working group is, you know, this is Again, you know, when you're when you're working on a project, and you want to help people understand how to use that project you put together training sample apps documentation and so forth that's just that's part of what you do. Right. We're talking about here is going a little bit above and beyond that. And again, I'm not saying that you can't do that. I'm just saying that if we're going to get others to come in and work on these things that there should be a threshold that that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying that you can't do those things. I'm just saying you can do it but not in the context of the working group is that is that what you're saying. I don't know exactly what you're saying if somebody is saying I want to work on creating training material for borough or indie which are still in incubation I take it. Then I shouldn't be prevented from doing that. Right. I mean, even in the context of working group before if I that's where I put to choose to put my resources in terms of what I am doing. So, my thing is, okay, yeah, I'm sure that the projects that are out of incubation will attract, which are active will attract a lot more. You know, people doing this than the ones that but I don't think we should just get it in such a way that we should prevent these people from doing it. Is it a question of resources from the Linux Foundation involved in this. It's not just the Linux Foundation, although there's there's that aspect of it but I think it's also a function of if there are people that are engaged in this working group that you know are working on these things that I think that there's a certain amount of if you will peer pressure to work on the things that the working group is working on. And so again I'm just I'm just concerned that you know I'm not picking anything out I'm just saying you know if if you know all of a sudden everybody's working on and let me just sort of pick something that's sort of maybe not getting as much attention and just say let's say the fabric SDK Python drive SDK Why we spend a lot of energy on that if there's not really enough energy to keep that project going Well I think the working group should figure that out on their own. Well but that was also not clear to me is how does the working group decide what they're going to work on. Right so maybe maybe I'm being a little bit over. I think you're coming back to the right question Chris which is how does the working group prioritize projects that are working on. Can we just leave it at bad level and not try to make the discrimination. So Tracy how how will you decide the first set of things you work on in the working group. So I mean I think it comes down to who wants to be involved right I think it really is where is the passion, as well as like where is the need. Obviously we have need for particular training I see in different areas. You know, for the different projects I have been at hackathons where people want it to use indie but couldn't necessarily get themselves started because they didn't know where to start right I think that's a big need that people have because the community is a huge space. So, you know if there are people who have the knowledge of indie I would not want to stop them from creating material for that. Now, do we prioritize prioritize that over something else. I don't know that I can say yes or no because if there's nobody who comes in with a passion for one of the other projects. If it is active. Why would I force them to try and create that because it's not going to happen I really feel like it's a, a, you know, volunteer nature that vipin was talking about right, and who those volunteers are really going to help decide kind of where some of this goes. Maybe is, you know, what we should be trying to do both the kind of the TSE level and I think about what I have Tracy and my, the rest of my staff this is Brian, by the way, sorry. The rest of us do is make sure that, you know, we amplify the duocracy right when people do show up to spend an hour contributing to something that it becomes the most productive hour possible. And, and that, you know, in the context of training training materials really benefit from having people who know how it's to create how to create training materials they're very different from documentation or source code. And, and having a kind of some degree of harmonization across the training materials across the rest of the project would also be beneficial to people climbing the learning curve and understanding how these different projects differ and how they relate. The role of the training project is training working group is not to decide how to allocate hours against different projects but really when they do show up, how do we get the most out of them and make it beneficial to the widest audience. I'm taking a different view of this, if you will. I see a need for training working group to help get tools in place and stuff but could almost envision that a year down the road. Having training material would be one of the criteria to go from incubation to active sort of like documentation. And I don't know just my weird interview. I would like some clarification on one thing which is, is this the same thing or is that going to basically encompass the education material development effort that was announced a while ago, where Robert was hired to work on this. No, it's intended to be the same effort. We kind of are bootstrapping it with Robert's efforts. And, but, but ultimately we view this group as kind of continuing the evolution of that content. And, and we may still continue to spend some money here to help bootstrap, you know, especially in projects that are younger. We have to, I mean, that's a Linux foundation and my staff, you know, we have to be nice and be wary of being accused playing favorites, that sort of thing. But yeah, that this is, in my view, the working group is the one that's kind of helping make sure that we keep the community engaged in that process and really ultimately leading the standard setting for what gets developed. Does that make sense? Yeah, okay. Thank you. Okay, so I guess that wasn't clear in the proposal. I didn't realize that this was picking up the MOOC and furthering it. Is that what it's doing? I think that's part of what it's doing. Right. I think any training material that comes out comes out of this is fair game to go into a MOOC, right. I think that the existing MOOC, right, as we want to make changes to that, definitely would be part of this training group. So I don't, I don't think it's right. Sorry, Dan. I was just curious what, I think people probably thought about this, but what's the benefit of orchestrating this through a separate working group as opposed to having each mature project take on some task about training that's maybe facilitated by people that have the skill sets to produce training material. It just, it seems to me that each project understands its domain specifics in greater detail than sort of something that would sit in the middle of all the projects. Right. And Dan, that gets to the second point that I had in my note, which was sort of review and approval of the content. And organizing in the way that you sort of described where it's really a function of the project to develop material and it's facilitated and augmented by either trained staff that are familiar with this domain of preparing training materials and so forth. And augmented with videos and other things that, you know, that, that, that organization can provide that, you know, maybe that's facilitated by the working group and the working group is, again, I'm just, I'm still struggling a little bit with, if we put all this in one repository, how do you manage that? What content is, you know, is, is approved? What part is still a work in progress? Those kinds of things, I think, you know, sort of fall out of this. And to your point, if it's a function of the work product of a, you know, sawtooth or a fabric or a cello or what have you, then it's a little bit easier to sort of align with the release and do all those other things that I think are going to be necessary. Yeah, I don't think the project hierarchy is intended to exclude or try to separate these teams. I think, you know, we could have a training working group basically decide how they want to set up their repo structure because you could have separate repos. You'd likely would have separate repos per training module and some modules are cross hyperledger. Others are specific to deep, deep dives into the different projects. But I certainly hope this isn't, you know, seeing this like keeping, keeping sawtooth maintainers away from, from this code and hopefully it's highly integrated. It has a little bit of a voice in this. Almost as much as your dogs. Probably the most coaching voices here. Okay. This, this is a blog. Tracy, I had some comments on the proposal. And the one question is in the proposal you use, you describe in the school is to prepare the education materials. And I want to know if the training working group will also have hold those education events, like training lessons or a seminar or causes. So I had, I hadn't necessarily thought about that. I don't know the answer to that. I think it probably depends on who the people are right as to whether or not they would want to hold training events. I'm not sure about that one. Okay. What do you think one thing I'll mention is that we see we're starting to see a lot of companies starting to provide training around fabric. And I, for the hopefully presumably on other platforms, and we think that's great. That's not something the Linux foundation wants to exclusively do by any means. And what we'd love to see are is that the content that drives those training sessions be built kind of like the way source code is, right? That we're combining efforts and allowing people to create derivative works, but, but encouraging them to, to contribute back upstream when possible. So we hope this forms the basis for other, other, other training programs and companies to, to profitably deliver training services. Brian, this is all. Yes, I agree with we've been running sessions, three day technical deep dives on hyperledger fabric. I've done six sessions already and I'll be happy to share the slide back and any material that we've, that we've perfected over those sessions. So I think it's a, it's a great idea and I'll be happy to share anything that we have so far. Well, I very much see a need for assistance in, in producing training materials. I still don't know if I've been able to wrap my head around the having a work group as, as the main mechanism to do that. No, I can just, just to speak out loud thinking out loud. I think when I worked on very big projects. I don't know, let's say in Cisco, right? So we had like the crypto team, we had the UI team, we had the interoperability team and all that. But then there was a documentation team, you know, that was separate. The problem was, it's always the case, right? The documentation team should work very closely from the development team, unless you have like very good developers that are good in documenting. I think, I think in a way it's a different skill, right? So I'm not sure kind of, we need to be able to open up to people that will probably, I don't know, speak better, write better, diagram better. But at the same time, the project should have some control over the content or promises that people are making in the documentation, keep them up to date. So yeah, Dan, I agree with you. I don't, I don't have an answer for that. I'm just saying that sometimes it's going to be different people that should document, I think, than the hardcore developers. But the only reason is that we don't want them to be completely detached, right? So yeah, I'm not sure. I don't know if it helped, but yeah. I think you're right, Jonathan. I think that, you know, the developers are very focused on what they're doing and trying to get the projects to the point where they want them to be right. And people who write documentation or do training, that takes a very special person, right, to really make sure that they're thinking about how to make this simple for somebody else to learn from. And, you know, so I mean, I do see that there could be some overlap, but that there's also a separate set of people who will want to be involved in creating material for people to learn from. So, I guess I'm, I'm still struggling here a little bit. Because what I think that there's a certain amount of, you know, shall we say just sort of general education, what's a blockchain, what's a block, what is consensus, that sort of thing that is, you know, that transcends any one project. Then I think that, you know, to Jonathan's point to Dan's point, you know, it's really the domain experts from the projects that have the deep knowledge and understanding that should significantly influence the the training material. But they, you know, you know, Jonathan outlined, they often don't necessarily have the skill set in producing, you know, effective training material, right, that's, that's a special, that's a special skill in and of its own self. But, you know, the documentation, people can't do the documentation without talking with an expert or at least having some raw material they can clean up and make, you know, do a better job of presenting to the intended audience and so forth. But I, you know, again, I think we need a little bit more clarity about, you know, how we prioritize I think we need a little bit more clarity about the fact that this is in conjunction with the, you know, the and Brian, I mean, help me understand how this works. I don't know if this is, do we pay the, is this a Linux Foundation effort that or is it a look at sorry, I'd say put aside the fact that there may be people that we decide to pay to help create content. Think of this working group. I mean, if it's easier to think of it like it's a software project, it's just that the code that they create our assets for the MOOC, or for training materials. If it's easier to think of it like a project, then think of it that way without working group is slightly easier, but really think of that as a group just trying to help all the projects create, you know, kind of unified training content and actually to also create that overview, you know, blockchain one on one kind of content that is in what what you'll see come out towards the end of this month. I, but, you know, do try to put aside the fact that, you know, we will possibly spend more money as they possibly we haven't decided yet or how, but almost certainly spend more money from the hyper ledger budget to help bootstrap additional content. Some of it perhaps project specific and we'll have to come up with a process to be seen as being fair in which we do, but leave that to the side. No matter where those resources show up. This is the group that should help make sure that there's a consistency to that those materials. And it's actually kind of, you know, performing that that say governance of this kind of the right word or not, but is working together to make sure all the content comes together in a way that makes sense to the outside world. And our hope is, you know, it's not just us paying for the development of the training materials that, you know, there's downstream consumers of that material who deliver training. Who then turn around and help us build in the training materials or burrow training materials, that sort of thing, or improve the sawtooth and fabric training that sort of thing. So, but put put the funding, it's not really governance over how we spend that money. It's governance over, no matter where those resources come together, how what's the best way to unify them. So it's really, I think one thing you touched on there, it's really as a working group, it's not, I mean, it'd be like a working group that defines what the training materials should cover kind of thing and there's actual individual projects to go do training material, right? It's the working group. I don't know. I mean, I'd kind of leave it up to the working group to set a little bit of how much, how much governance do they want to perform versus how let's say fair. Are they about how, you know, each of the different chapters come together. I'd say good training modules, good training materials don't go on indefinitely and don't grow without bound. I do actually say, okay, here's a unit called Intro to Sawtooth and it's 20 hours long of content with some questions and answers at the end. And if there's advanced materials and that forms a second unit, right? And it could be that this working group says, okay, here's the kind of comprehensiveness we want. Here's how broad and then how deep, but ultimately it's the volunteer resources that show up who kind of actually provide the meat, the substance for what goes up. Yeah, and I would say that if we have Intro to Sawtooth and, you know, we should also have Intro to Fabric, Intro to Borough, Intro to Indie, Intro to Iroha, right? That it should be consistent across all our projects so that we're, you know, focusing in on making sure that that anybody could start wherever they want and have the same level of access, right? And maybe, you know, it's going to take a while to get somebody who can do Intro to Fubar, right? And, you know, at that point when somebody showed up and says, you know, I really learned about Fubar, that's when that material starts to get printed. So I think I see, and Nathan's comment in the chat just now sort of reflects, you know, what I think I heard from Dan and that is, you know, so there, and others, I don't want to exclude anybody, but this notion that the working group is sort of coordinating education and training materials across the project landscape, helping to drive consistency, conformity, and, and, you know, helping to provide guidance and so forth, that there's a certain amount of, you know, shall we say sort of generic, you know, what's a blockchain and maybe that can be the purview of a project that is formed, that other people can join, that the working group itself would sort of, I think initially established, but that's a project. And that the working group, you know, to Nathan's point is responsible for sort of creating the, what is it, what does it look like, how is it, you know, presented and so forth. And that it's, you know, like Dan suggested, that it's actually a project or a sub project that's off developing and collaborating on building the actual material itself. And, you know, like the project, you know, it goes through an incubation period, maybe to an active status, and, and then gets to a point where it's 1.0 and it can be published, and so forth. And that that kind of a natural thing, I think, helped, you know, tends to fit in with, you know, some of the other things we are doing. And again, it sort of puts this in the, you know, if there's going to be training material for Sawtooth, I'm sure Dan and Nick and, and Sean and the others would like to have a certain amount of say and when they think it's correct and done. And that I think naturally falls, if it's a product of the project, that seems to me to be the best way of articulating this. And that, you know, the others, if there's a generic, you know, Blockchain 101, that there's a project for Education Blockchain 101. And it goes through the same life cycle as every other. People contributed to it, just like every other. Is it, am I making sense? Yeah, exactly. And I, it's funny, like, all of this is stuff that, you know, you'll see in the flesh. And some of you who have been working with Robert have seen drafts of this, and, and we, you know, there's no reason for us not to get it out pretty soon. October 25th, this one we said we'd put it up on edX, but it'll be available sooner. And it does flesh out all these kinds of kind of cross project kinds of things. I think the, and I do think these ended up being work products of the training working group in the same way that white papers are a work product of the architecture working group, in the same way that you have other other work products. And then I would leave it up to, frankly, the training working group to decide, do they want to content manage training materials that are project specific by having that management happen in a repo that is close to and owned by the fabric maintainers, for example, or close to and owned under the training working group. I don't know that we need to dictate it ahead of time, but I can understand why you might want to clarify that. But I tend to be late binding on all of these kinds of governance questions. Lazy binding. Did you have something to say. I said lazy binding, which is actually a good thing. Oh, so where are we do we need. Are people comfortable with the charter is written or does it need additional clarification based on our conversation here today. I'm sort of thinking that, you know, the latter. Is it still a new concept and we digest it for for this week. And I think we still have some other agenda items to hit today. Yeah, Nick or no. I agree with that I think, you know, there's still, I think, you know, the discussion was helpful for me, I think it clarifies a little bit with the intent is, I still have a concern with the fact that I see an inherent conflict. You know, for resources, there's going to be some form of competition of, you know, between the projects themselves that are all trying to put more effort into developing better documentation and training material right and this group. But if we can afford to do it. I have no problem with it. And from my side, I'm, I'm, I think this is a great thing that we should be initiating. It's still not obvious to me what the, what the primary objective of the group would be. And that and to a degree I'm comfortable with that because I think they're going to figure it out. But but spending a little more time thinking about it I think would be a good thing. On my side, I think I like the idea that there's a forum for this kind of collaboration I think the projects will have a lot to learn from each other in terms of what materials are effective and having a place for those discussions to occur makes a lot of sense. I think in some ways we've struggled with some of these kinds of documents in the white paper and architecture working groups, because it wasn't necessarily the right audience to be developing the material. So this seems like a benefit in that respect. But I think the, the question is just kind of who's going to participate with what time and resources. And you know, we can't really see what that will look like until we try it. Yes. Thanks Nathan Jonathan, either I'm viewed or stepped away for a moment to heart any. Yeah, I mean, I think having a training group definitely makes sense. We need to kind of figure out as some people have pointed out kind of what is the responsibility of the projects and what is the responsibility of the working group and how to kind of make sure that the projects in the working group kind of work together to sort of maximize the materials and avoid duplication. But yeah, I think this is a great idea in the long run. So I think we have a little bit more work to do Tracy on the proposal and a little bit more discussion on the mailing list. We got 20 minutes left. So I think, again, we're not going to do the chain code designer today, but I think we should try to wrap up on hyper ledger quilt. So, Adrian I saw you on earlier. Yeah, you're still here. I think we, you know, the, the, the discussion on quilt had sort of, you know, come to certain amount of closure. So, why don't we just open it up for any remaining concerns about the proposal. I don't think we need to, you know, go through it again. Not necessarily. We've already done that a couple of times, but were there any outstanding concerns that people had with the quilt proposal. When I review the draft earlier, I made some suggestions, but it's really what's my thing. I think the draft is pretty much there. Okay, I'm so I'm not hearing any. So I think Todd, we should put it up for a vote. All right, sounds good. Walk into the list quickly or no. Yes. Bow Haw. Let's give it a try. Yes. Chris. Yes. Dan. Yes. Hart. Yes. Jonathan. Yes. Nick. Yes. Nathan. Yes. All right. That passes unanimously. Okay. Thanks everyone. And then just as a reminder, then. We have the project reporting that we unanimously approved by email. Oh, congratulations, Adrian. Absolutely. I'm assuming from here, I'm going to pick up with master on the logistics and specifics of. Can I need to do in terms of moving code across and so on. Yeah, in terms of moving code, basically, in rocket chat, reach out to either right Jones or Jessica. Jessica wagon tail, either one of those two should be able to help you. We get a repository created so that you can pour the code in. Okay, just to add there, they're really friendly on rocket chat. If you join the CI pipeline channel for build issues or the Jira channel for Jira or ticket issues, they're always very responsive. Okay, cool. So I'm not familiar with rocket chat. We've been using getter on the project a lot and we used to lack internally. So I'll just have to get myself signed up there and figure that all out. Adrian, this is Tracy Kurt. So I'm the community architect for hyper ledger. I will reach out to you with kind of details about where rocket chat is and kind of talk to you about mailing list and things like that and how we want to deal with that. So I'll send you an email. Yeah. Okay, fantastic. Thank you. Yeah, looking forward to it. Okay, thank you. So project reporting. Tracy put together a schedule and she conveniently put fabric first. I think I get stuck with the first the first go. I don't know if somebody kind of link the schedule in there. And so I'll put that together and then I'll take lumps first. And we'll get that process rolling and I suspect that, you know, as we as we get the reports out, we can discuss whether they're, you know, is the right information. Well, I think as we do the first few will sort of figure out, you know, whether we're getting too much information, not enough information, the right information, the wrong information so forth. So, but happy to get that up and running. Chris, let me know if you have any challenges with the project reporting template. I've got a ticket in right now to make sure that the template gets used for any new, new updates that get created on the page. They're because of the changes, the old ones still exist out there so I haven't seen an update yet on that ticket to for the new one so we may have to manually do that the first go round. So when I create the page it's going to fill in the template I mean the template will sort of be pre-plated or. Exactly, you'll see the template there and then you just have to fill in the information so you don't need to do anything. But like I said this first time you might need to make the changes that we manually made with the review like on them. I'll ping you when I start filling it in make sure. So it's good. Thanks. Any other topics for today? Yeah, a trip to the bar. Okay, then I'll give everybody a few minutes back. Enjoy your weekend everybody. Thanks everyone. Thanks everyone. Adrian.