 The usual intro, I think he knows. The floor is yours. All right, thank you. Welcome everyone. This is the weekly TSC call. This is a public call. Everybody's welcome to join and contribute. There is two requirements to doing so, though. The first one is to be aware and live by the antitrust policy, which is currently displayed on your screen. If you're joining online. The other piece is the code of conduct. It basically requires a really be his respectfully and as a decent human being. With that taken care of, you're all welcome to join and participate. So we didn't have a call last week as, you know, for those who are new, this is fairly frequent occurrence. You know, I will try to keep the short, you know, busy. So the, sorry, the call fairly busy. So we don't have just like calls for the sake of it. I'd like to have a precise agenda so we know why we are calling it off this week. And if there is not, you know, enough material for me to feel like this is worth spending, you know, every time I'll just call it off and push it to the next week. So that's what I did last week. And I always give a chance to people to let me know if there's something that needs to be discussed this week rather than, you know, postponed. And I always give a chance to people to let me know if there's anything else that I need to be aware of that makes it worth keeping the call. Otherwise I'll just, you know, postpone like I did last week. So, and this has worked well so far. So I think every, you know, as like that process. So I will keep it that way. For the foreseeable future. So. Is there any announcement? There's not that I know, but maybe somebody has some. This is a good time to bring anything if you'd like. In general, I would ask anyone that has technical stuff that they would like to add to our weekly newsletter to please do that. That's, that's it. Okay, maybe you need to tell them how they do, they go at doing this. Okay, I will, I'll post a link in the chat. I'll post a link in the chat. You make a comment on the wiki page and then. It's edited together and it goes out as part of the newsletter. Yeah. Thank you. All right. And by the way, right refer to the chat. We typically don't use the chat of the zoom meeting, but we use the TSE rocket chat channel. So if there's anything you want to say on the side. I think this is where to go to the TSE rocket chat channel. All right, with that taken care of, let's keep moving. There was one quarterly reports submitted from the technical working group in China. Jay, I mean, we don't actually require quarterly reports from the working groups unless they produce technical content that we should be aware of, because the China group tends to submit one every now and then gives us an opportunity to know what they are up to. And so I encourage everybody to go ahead and have a look. I think it was submitted shortly before. So I don't think many people had a chance to look at it. I had a couple of questions I asked directly in comments to the wiki page. I just wanted to make sure that we have a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, a, you know, someone recently I make sure that it stays on the agenda. Until, you know, people I've had a chance to bring stuff like, you know, some, when, when it's like this typically I'll put it again on next week's call so that, you know, obviously the only like what three or four people, check the boxes, saying they have reviewed it. So. until, you know, I've seen like a significant number of people have reviewed it. So one or two calls did begin. Got it. Thanks. Okay. All right. Right. Sorry. We can add comments to the report at any point in time. Yes, of course. So this is only in case there is something else that you know, you want to have a live discussion on or bring up. Otherwise, of course, as Mark says, we are, you know, you're welcome to comment and request information on the wiki page directly. It's actually the favorite way, the preferred way of interacting because it's offline. It allows us to all work a synchronously, which is better if it's not enough. So we have a chance to bring it up during the TSC calls. Okay. Tracy. Tracy. So I noticed in the report, I reviewed it. But I didn't make this comment. Maybe should have. But the two tools under the performance. SIG that are listed there. For the representatives who have. China working group that are on. You might want to consider bringing those as. So that they can get a wider audience taking a look at them as well. Yeah, that's a good point. Hey, this is Jay. Hey, Tracy, thanks for the comment. So we have. Actually organization is called hyper ledger TWC, which is that established by I think links foundation. And we are planning to bring these two tools into that space. And we're currently establishing some process and criteria for this. Space. So wait, what is that space you're talking about, Jay? You can. If you go to, I think, I could help slash hyper ledger dash TWC. Okay. So in the TWC parking group repo. Yeah, we have a repo. It's not a repo, but it's a good of space. Yeah. Right. Okay. I mean, I think these tools are still too tiny for a hyper ledger labs, but we're happy to take it to the TWC space. And we have some major pipeline stuff. That's cool. The only, you know, if. The only problem that, that I see with this is that, you know, I think you would have more space. If you brought it to the labs. And if it's not Chinese specific, I don't know why it would be limited to, you know, the Chinese space. We have. Daniel has his hand up. Yeah. But let me let Jay answer, please. I mean, first of all, we probably don't have any sponsor to, for them to be getting to hyper labs. And I mean, I, we don't really have a, I mean, just, I think these tools are still tool. I'd say newborn for labs. Okay. Just to clarify, I mean, I think you have too high an expectation on the labs. Some of the labs started nothing except a short description of a few lines. So the bar is on purpose, right? Purposefully very low lab is the space for people to do experiment. So I have no doubt this would qualify for it just so you know. So let me go to the queue. Because I want to respect other people's requests to talk. Daniel is first. So I noticed you're using subgroups called SIGs. My concern is with the use of the term SIG. Cause I believe it does have SIGs. They account to the governing board. Like capital market SIG. I wonder if a different phrase might be a little better used for the subgroups. I think it's a great idea. You know, maybe a different word. Sure. I mean, we could just rename it. I mean, we don't really use English names anyway. So we can name it as a subgroup or subworking group or any other suggestions. Or the Chinese name. That would work too. That's a good point. I agree. That's why I asked the SIG. Because we do have a SIG. In the hyperledger. And it's not the same kind of group. So it would be good to have a different name if possible. Okay. Sure. I mean, we will. I mean, we will come up with something new, but this is only really used for our report. So yeah, thanks. I will. Change the name. Call it whatever you want. You can call it subgroup. Okay, sure. Okay, anything else? Tracy. Yeah, I just want to say, Jay, you may not have noticed this on the TSC chat, but if you are looking for a sponsor, feel free to put my name down for those two. If you'd like to bring them to that. Okay. Yeah, I will talk to you about that. I think it would be good to get the, I mean, I don't know if you had any connections with the performance and scale working group. They might have an interest in what you're doing there. Or, I think it would be good to have a sponsor. Feel free to put my name down for those two. If you'd like to bring them to that. Okay. Yeah, I will talk to the authors of these tools. And I will show you a message. Thanks, Tracy. All right. Thank you. Anything else. I don't know if you're interested in what you're doing there. Or the catty per project. Since you're measuring stuff. Yeah. One, it would be good to have some connection there. Actually, at the very beginning of this performance sub working group, we were planning to join the performance. The working group basically using the same time of the meeting. But then we found out that the per. Per project was actually canceled quite often. So we just simply go ahead and do our own meetings. And in Chinese, probably. But yeah, we definitely looked at the, the hyper ledger working group of performance. And we also look at the catty per project. And the reason we came up with a little new tool for measuring stuff is simply because it's more lightweight and easier to use, but it's definitely not as full featured as catty per. It just has its own probably probably counts. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for Jay. Okay. Thank you for submitting the report and being here to answer questions. My pleasure. Thanks. All right. So we have two other reports that I do. I would expect to receive it, borrow and not sure they already warned us that they would have. They would be on the. To call that that kind of pause for this quarter. So I don't know if we can expect much of a report at this point. We may not get any for this quarter. And I think that's okay. So let's move on. Then I have put on the agenda, a call for decision. We just, you know, I brought that up last week or last call, I should say already. It didn't seem like there was much controversy. The idea was, you know, as we've discovered, I think there's general agreement that the quarterly reports, even though we'll review them, we don't necessarily get the full picture of what's going on in those projects. And so as part of trying to improve on the information that's being brought to the TSE. So we do get a better idea of what's going on. I thought we should leverage the Linux foundation insights tool that we have at our disposal now, and that right as actually customized to fit the hyperledger projects. And so there's a lot of data available. And you know, of course, the point is anybody can go and check out every single time, anytime you want. And of course, when you get a report, you could take the action to just go on your own and check the dashboard for the given project you're looking at the, you're looking at the report for, but I thought it would be good to just have the project reports on that, you know, include that in their report to just make it easier. And I saw Tracy. So last week I brought, last call, I brought that up. It didn't seem to be controversial, but we didn't really make a formal decision. I would like to make a decision so that it's recorded that we agree. This is a requirement. And from the projects from that on. And so we should date the template for the reports so that it's highlighted. And we can then expect projects to report on that. I would expect, you know, if people, because I know what it's like, you take typically the report from last time, and you just start with a copy and then you update it. I think we all do that. It's a natural thing to do. And it's convenient to do that on the wiki, which means if you do that, you're missing, you don't actually use the template every single time. And you will miss the fact that we have changed the template. But so it is upon us to, you know, to make sure that we have changed the template. And I think it's important for us to point out a, you're missing the report, please add this, you know, and it might take like, you know, at least a few quarters for all the, the projects to have reported enough. And, and, and for us to have brought that up so that the report includes this. And then from then on, I think it will naturally be there. So I saw there were some comments about what exactly, you know, how we can make it easy for people to have that information. And the point is we don't want. We want that information because, you know, if you just link to the top page, it's not very useful. We want it to be, you know, narrowly. Scoped to the project. And we're trying to find some kind of like. Low hanging fruit. What is, how can we make it easy for people to have that information? And the point is we don't want. We want that information because you know, if you just linked to the top page, it's not very useful. But we want it to be, you know, We want it to be a, you know, a, a scope to the project and to the period you're reporting on. And so it would be nice to have that done automatically, but in the one try to take yet another project to build a. A whole, you know, robot around that. So we came up with this URL. That is pretty simple. There's two, two key factors, you know, and one, two, three, four. And then you have the link that we have to update. At least once you have the name of the project that you need to put, but that would be only once. And then you would just change the dates for the range. Right? It's from and to. And I think it's a fairly simple edit when you put your report together, you have the link and you just change the range and automatically people are given the link that will give them the link. So that's my proposal. I think this is something that doesn't require much effort from the reporter. And it does provide us with, you know, in one click, the relevant information, but I'm happy to hear other people suggestions if there are others, but that's my take on this. So Tracy, I know you thought maybe could do more than that. But I think it's important to think one, two things, one to automate this, because I feel like this would be a pain for projects. Secondly, you know, to include it directly in the report versus having to click on link. I think the less links you can add to things that people have to click on, the more likely it is that they're going to look at it versus not clicking on the link to go look at it. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. I think that's a good thing. Improvements to this, right? I'm not adverse to the proposal. I just, I'd like to. Ensure that. And if we can't do it now, that's one thing. Like in the future. If we can somehow make these things happen. I have a, I have a question after Hart has his work. Maybe you should go. Okay. My, my question is. You know, I'm talking about monuments in time. So the, this report data will change over time. And we could have a discussion about. How things were. In the past. And then they would change as, as. As things change. Should this perhaps be a PDF. Of the report. Or something of that nature that's static. I don't understand. You need to clarify, because if we set the range, that's not going to change. Is it? Well, what if you add. What if you add a new project, right? So fabric adds a new repo. And the, the numbers for the, the previous time will show that there were, it may show that there was a jump. So this repo comes in from outer space. It has contributions in that time. In that timeframe, right? It lands under fabric. And now the statistics that were under discussion. At the time of the report. Are no longer reflected in the link. I see. One thing that would help would be just to pick a few key metrics, like number of commits and have a trend line of the last four quarters in each report. Yeah. Spark lines for the wind. I think if you want to do something static like that. You know, that, that's probably the ideal solution. If it's easy to do. But I do like Tracy's suggestion that. Sort of the less clicks, the better. And the more we can directly include it in the report. You know, the better as well. That being said, I think this overall is a great idea. And we're just talking about sort of implementation details. So if we have some language that. You know, just basically says we're doing this, I would be all in favor of passing it today. Yeah, I feel like, you know, these are good improvements. I wouldn't want to. Stop it. I think, you know, everybody agrees that we need, this is a good direction to follow anyway. I'm intrigued by the seat. The scenario right just talked about. Maybe there is a middle ground and, you know, there's going to be. There's a tradeoff between how much we can ask the orders to plan. And, and, and the burden we are adding to them, right. It's like. They could take a snapshot of the page at the time they do it. And the link. And, you know, you would have kind of both. But. And, and can we embed the whole page. In the week. Is that's a technical question. I don't know the answer. I'm saying yes. Because that's a big chunk. I mean, there's like, you know, if you look at our reports today, they're pretty small. And if you add like two pages of graphs and stuff. I mean, that's okay. Sorry to interrupt. Are these metrics consistent across all the projects or do we need to fix them go by configuring something in here? No, so that's a different story. There is the work on the insights. If you, I mean, they are consistent across all the projects. And there are scripts that are running automatically and updating all these data, all these dashboards. It's run along the projects. And if they are, if people have feedback on how to improve or bugs, they see. Just go to Ryan letting know it'll fix it. So, okay. So quickly, can we embed that in the page? I'm all for it. If it's simple enough that people can do that. There's a compliance. Like insert page or extra HTML or something like that. I can't. Okay. So I will try to punt on that one. And say, you know, go back to what hot was saying. This sounds like an implementation detail, though I think it's the one that we care about. So I would propose we, you know, we, we, we approve this proposal as stated and then, you know, put an action item to investigate how the, the data could be embedded into the page so that people have the information with that, I think to click on the link. And if, you know, we can figure this out. I'm happy to have that included as part of the implementation. I don't think it makes a big difference when we update the template, we can put the right magic so that it's embedded as opposed to just have a simple link. Does that work? Okay. I don't hear anybody anymore. I will take a silence for consent. Can we therefore I would like to move for the approval of this proposal. Anybody wants to second it? I'll second. Sure. All right. How about we try to use the zoom feature. TSC members. You can click yes, the yes button. If you agree. No, if you disagree or do nothing, if we just abstain again. So I don't know what is. I thought we had found something for. It was like the coffee symbol or something. Oh yeah, you can use the clock or something like this to say you're abstaining. Can I click go faster to make the meeting go faster? If you want, yeah. I, we only have Gary and. An 80 C. I haven't voted. So I think it passes with two abstentions. Oh, yes. To concentrations recorded. Thank you. This is there for improved. Good. We have to cancel the yeses I guess. All right. Very good. Thank you. Let's move on, then. So, I mean, Aaron, you had volunteered to make some proposal for the rollover project issue. I didn't see anything. Is that okay? Did I miss it? No, I did not send it towards the document which I started once incomplete. Hey, if you would allow me to speak on more on the previous point, right? So, since we still have open items, do you think it's better to keep that as an agenda item so that we clarify those open items? But maybe follow-ups with RAI and others. You're talking about the decision we just made there? Yes. So, decision is approved. But how about the follow-up so that we answer those open questions which we just had to embed the reports and what if the time range spills over? How do we take that screenshot? Are we okay with attaching PDF? Those were still open questions. Yeah, that's fine. We can put as part of the action item, we can put action item to report back to the TSE about the details of the implementation. Sure. That's good. Thanks. Okay, so we'll skip the rollover projects issue for now. Then Arun, and I want to thank him. I mean, I actually met Arun during the Hyperledger member summit and noticed that he had a lot of ideas. And so, I'm not surprised that he's one of the people who respond to my call for ideas and agenda items. So, I basically put the different points that he brought up in his email. So, the floor is yours, Arun. You wanted to talk about allowing new projects under the Hyperledger in reference to the stack. I mean, there was a stack that was presented during the member summit. I was looking for it. I didn't find it. Maybe the staff can help us there. But Arun, go ahead. Thanks Arun. So yeah, this is one of the topic which was brought up during the member summit and I attended at least two time zone sessions, if not all three. And then this was highly discussed among those two sessions where I attended. And one of the things which multiple organizations over there brought up was how do they get involved? So, the speed of adoption and then the readiness of application for the blockchain adoption is what they are looking at. And then the other question was how do we compare Hyperledger versus some of the other offerings out there which is not under Hyperledger. So, the suggestions which people gave were referencing to the document which was sent out a few days before the member summit. And then I'm not sure if Rai has that diagram. The diagram actually lists four different areas around which for any blockchain application adoption, right? It layers them into four different technology suits. I don't know how to put it in better terms. Why do you have that? Maybe we can share that. I don't know if Rai is going to. Yeah, I don't know. If you give me a URL, I'll open it. But I might remember, I'll try to find it in my mails, but I might remember that diagram. Yeah, I can share the graphic, it's in the member report, so it's a member document, but I will put it into the chat in a second, the graphic. All right, thank you Daniel. You're welcome. This question to the TSE over here is, how far in the stack in the diagram should we go with respect to having projects under Hyperledger? And where should we limit ourselves in Hyperledger? Some of this is answered in the charter and has been, you know, refined over the years, I would say by, you know, having projects being submitted to Hyperledger in at least one instance. The TSE was ensured, this was in scope, we actually escalated the issue to the board, which ultimately is in control of what we do. And they gave us direction for, you know, further direction and we therefore agreed to go ahead, that was in the case of the grid project, which was higher up than all the other projects we had been tackling to that point. And there were questions about whether this was within the scope or not. But I thought, so I'm interested to kind of hear what your idea is, you know, beyond that because, you know, for those who are not aware, there's actually one of the open issues we have on the decision log, if you look back, there's like long term agenda framing, I think it's called issue, which very much talked about this, you know, Dan Middleton had brought that up. And it was the idea was like, well, you know, beyond what we're doing, what are we missing, what should we have as a goal. And I kind of like the idea, I mean, the topic because, you know, a lot of people have been lamenting on the fact that TSE doesn't seem to be steering much, and this is one area where we could possibly say, you know, this is an area where we have a gap, and maybe it would be good to welcome projects. At the same time, you know, there's a limit to how much we can do in this front, on that front, because at the end of the day, anybody can make a project proposal at any time, and we will look at them. We don't have resources we can throw out, you know, we cannot just say, yes, let's create a project in that space, because there's a gap. We can suggest that this would be a good idea and the TSE would welcome a project proposal in a specific area. But that's about as far as we can go, because we don't have resources we can allocate and say yes, we'll put resources into that project. The staff might, at some point, you know, I know Brian has been toying with the idea of maybe using some of our budget to, you know, put resources into specific projects if that helped. But this is not something that has been done so far and, you know, I wouldn't necessarily count on it at least. So, this is the stack you were talking about Aaron. That's right. This is the one which I was talking about. So in the one side it says it kind of briefly described what each stack, the responsibility of the project is and on the right side it lists the examples and that particular layer. Okay, but so keep going. I mean, what do you suggest we do with this. There were concerns raised on what projects that TSE accepts during the member summit, maybe it is not clear to members, maybe it is not clear to the community. Okay. So I think so you think we should, we should be clear about the kind of project that is that would be welcome. I'm going to turn to. Yeah, Tracy good. It looks like we've covered everything except the infrastructure and applications within this stack. We have different projects related to these different aspects. I think the question becomes, is there other things in this. I really think applications and infrastructure, why not. You see there's a sound issue with the microphone you kind of fade in and out. In and out it's probably when the wind blows. Can you hear me okay now. Not at all. Yes, I can hear you but. Yeah, I'm just saying I don't think we want anything in the applications and infrastructure but we have everything else covered. And the question then becomes is there anything else in these middle four pieces that we want to add or that we think we should add. All right, thank you. We can hear you better now so just so you know. Okay, so is there. I think with the statement Tracy just made that basically we as far as hyper ledger is concerned we leave within those four. Four layers in the middle away from the two extremes of the bottom and the top. I think that is things currently are. The board would give us latitude to come back and propose changes to our scope if we deem it necessary or critical for hyper ledger to continue or expand. Okay. I mean, I wouldn't go on that far but I would say, I don't want to presume what the board would say but I think fundamentally what Mark is touching on is, if there was a question about whether we're allowed. We always have the option to go to the board to ask, you know, for permission. One thing I'll add is there did seem to be a clear some clear feedback from members at the member summit that there was an openness to considering expanding the scope beyond just blockchain technologies. I mean, everything here kind of is what I'd consider fitting into the bucket of the current scope for hyper ledger. Maybe this is just a, you know, slightly different way to organize it then we organize the greenhouse kind of slide. I think the question is whether, you know, whether whether blockchain itself blockchain for business is to constricting or more constricting than it needs to be. And whether there's other technologies that are aligned either with the decentralized web or or just this web 3.0 concept in general. An example would be IPFS right or other distributed hash table types of systems. Whether there's interest in expanding the scope to include those, you know, if we can still use the term blockchain for that or not. But I think there's interest in saying is there are we missing out on anything interesting by having the existing scope be blockchain technologies. And I think the member community was happy to have the TSE talk about this and consider that and come up with a recommendation. And obviously it'd be useful to have some sort of example, some project that wants to come in but we had said no to because it wasn't blockchain enough or something like that, which I don't think we really have. Yes, thank you for that Brian. I think that's very relevant to this discussion indeed. Daniel. So, a slight different tangent. What's, what's the appetite for projects that are basically serving a single chain. For example, you know with theory and we have you know the enterprise change in the splits and everything like that but the E2 might be one example there's other blockchain projects that really exist to serve a single public chain and there's no private chain equivalent. Is there much of an appetite for that does the scope need to be something that an enterprise could take within a walled garden run independently or is it open to require public participation in a single chain I think that's another question that should be asked whether it's something that must be severable. All right, so it's good to me that's indeed an interesting question worth considering anything else. I mean to me this is you know, I'm still trying. At the end of the day, you know as I was saying we, you know it's not like we have rejected proposals, just, you know, not that I'm aware that we said no, go away. That kind of raises the question. I do think it's interesting, you know, to know. I don't know that there is a, do we, does anybody have evidence that there are projects that would be interested if we were clear on whether they are, they would be welcome and not by better define the scope of our work. What was the project. What was the project that came in ended up as a lab. It kind of has died off. I'll go look at the labs website. Yeah I was going to say there are so many labs that kind of die off. I don't know. I wouldn't know anybody else. And Brian obviously, you know, as a lot of contact with potential members and with projects they might be interested in. And he's definitely the most, I would expect to be the person who is the most knowledgeable about that and, you know, taught. Yeah, and, you know, I haven't felt any pressure in that respect. I haven't found myself saying to somebody thinking about, you know, open sourcing their technology and asking if hyperledger is a home. I haven't found myself saying to them, Oh, no, that's outside of our scope recently. It's, it's, it has been kind of quiet on that front. So I don't. I'm not feeling the pressure from that direction. I'd love to see us inside the core projects, think about, you know, interfacing with the web three or decentralized web kind of crowd. Like a lot of people, for example, combine fabric or other DLTs with IPFS as a way to do kind of off ledger sharing. But haven't seen a kind of a formal way to do that, or kind of a repeated supported way to do that and that could be an interesting thing I don't think it would currently be considered outside of our scope, because it ties to one of these ledgers. You know, and then, and then perhaps other interest in supporting things like the baseline protocol and other things but again I don't find myself going, you know, hyperledger wouldn't be an appropriate would not be an appropriate home for that. So, I think if a runes main proposal and or the reason for bringing up the stack was to ask, should we should we expand the scope or their other new projects to bring in because everything on that list was something I consider in scope already. What was it more about saying there's a, this is a different way to organize the greenhouse and projects in that way, although I don't think projects neatly necessarily fit into those categories exclusively. Or is it third what saying there's there's one true stack that we should align ourselves around and have clear handoffs between those layers and that sort of thing. I really like the direction that the, the, the, the blockchain automation framework is heading in, you know, to try to come up with kind of standardized ways to manage the different ledgers out there from an infrastructure point of view. More projects like that I think would be a really cool thing. So, you want to answer Brian's question. I'm thinking what to answer. So, I'm thinking why did this topic came up during SWAT analysis in the member summit. If it came up probably there is, there is communication, there is some miscommunication or there is something which is missing between what this quorum here thinks, as opposed to what the members in that quorum thought about. So let me do, let me take an action item and I'll ask around few of my contacts who, who did attend that member summit and then who did raise this question and ask them, hey, what, what was your specific question, or do you think there was a specific project which was not accepted or was there any concerns, questions raised on that. I think that would be the right direction to go with that. And answering his question on, on restructuring the greenhouse and then calling them instead of calling them as, I mean, just restructuring and then calling them with different names. I think I'm fine with it. All right, sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. Daniel has his hand. Yeah, I was wondering, maybe we should consider a statement as to where on the stack we would solicit projects and where we think that we are have sufficient coverage. For example, you know, we say we're interested in developer tools and layer two protocols interact with our DLTs. But we're pretty full with DLTs. So unless you got something special, it's going to be hard to bring. I mean, are we interested in making statements like that as to where we want to solicit projects to come into, because that might help us fill in these gaps we say we want it here, even if we don't have a project in mind right now. Yes, that's kind of what I was probing for as well. It's like, I think that could make sense to do this. Anybody else. All right, we don't have to, you know, come to a final answer on this now, but I think it is an interesting question that is worth thinking about. So, you can leave it at this for today. Arun, you want to speak more. Maybe not related to this, but I had this question from long time. So do we frame, so as part of TSC, a technical roadmap for next one year, or what is the plan that that is done as part of TSC? Let's say, do we fix up on goals and say, hey, by next year, we wish to have these kind of features on at least one ledger. It could be another layer two solution for doing some other task XYZ. For example, if it is for offline, for off chain data transfer, that's kind of becoming common in other ledgers. So do we plan to have a project around that in labs? Is there anything done by TSC on that front, just on deciding what should be the scope for next one year? That's a good question. The short answer is no, we don't have that. We have touched on this issue in different ways many times over the years. You know, at the end of the day, as I was saying, the challenge we have is that the TSC doesn't have much power despite what people might expect, because it's very bottom up. The projects do what they want, and each project is responsible for what they do. And we kind of an oversight, but we can't force any project to do something. So, or a new project to get started, we can encourage it. This is what I was saying earlier, but it doesn't stop us from looking into it and say, hey, this is what we think this is an area. And we could indeed, you know, maybe solicit proposals by being clear about, you know, areas where we see a need. And so I think that could be an interesting endeavor for the TSC to take on. So, you know, my answer to you is really like, yeah, there's nothing stopping us. We've never really gone that far. I don't know that anybody would be opposed to it either. So for the sake of time, you know, we are only eight minutes left. So there's one more question you brought up that I wanted to touch on. So I suggest we leave that topic for now at this and and let people think about it and I'm happy to continue the discussion on the next call. See if people, you know, and in between if people have ideas, please do use the mailing list post in the mailing list. If you have further ideas or proposals, it doesn't have to be completely fleshed out, but I think it's good to have the discussion going. So, for now, I would like to go back to the agenda. There was one more question that I will you raise again on the working group responsibilities. So I honestly, it's a bit open ended. Can you please clarify further in this question. Yeah, so this, this maps back to the email which Dan started. I guess this was brought up in the previous TSE term as well. Should we bring in some of this working group discussions into TSE discussions, which are non-governance related, which are more towards technical. So I'm not, you know, this is again, I mean, I don't know to answer this exactly. I don't know if people have ideas or reactions. My gut reaction is, you know, is we've never said no. The groups are certainly welcome to bring up topics for discussion to the TSE. And maybe it will be worth making that statement clear that this is definitely an option, whether we want to proactively encourage them and probe them and say, Hey, don't you have any topic you should bring up to the TSE. I don't know. This is something we haven't done for sure. We do have a monthly marketing dev rail call where there is some prodding to try to get more collaboration there between marketing and developers. I don't think it would be out of line to, you know, kind of prod people or at least make them aware that the forum exists. Bobby. Hi, I know from my working group that when we stopped doing the quarterly reports, it kind of let us lost for a while. And we're just now getting like an idea of what tasks we want to propose. So I think it would be in the best interest of the community. If we encourage the working groups more. Again, when we don't do the quarterly reports there's really no tether to the TSE. That's an interesting feedback. Thank you. Tracy. So I was just going to say that I think some of this also has to do with bringing other ideas into this larger form. Right, so that there's the cross collaboration that we maybe are missing now might be something that we can try to do. I think at some point there was a suggestion, but like, at least having one technical topic each month being brought to the TSE. Either from a project or working group from a lab to have them come and present to the TSE so that people know what's happening out there. Sounds good to me. Bobby, what do you think about that? I already do that on the learning materials homepage I try to keep a bulletin board of everything that's happening in the community up to date so that people can figure out what the working groups are up to we have a resource library. And my team goes out to all the different working groups and special interest groups sits in on the calls and then comes back and reports and are again something that we're proposing to the TSE in the future is getting that more interactive with the community. So one thing that is worth clarifying is, you know, we, we use to require working groups to report right on a quality basis just like the other projects. And then when we, when we remove the requirements for working groups to deliver any products. We say, well, then, you know, we should remove that requirement to report. And the obviously, like we saw today, the China group, for instance, they do report every now and then. And so, again, I, you know, just because we don't require it does not prevent working groups from doing it. And here, you know, Bobby's point about the fact that, well, if we don't require there's not much incentive for working groups to do it. I, you know, I don't know how to try and strike the right balance on that one. Any other, anybody on any other ideas or reactions to what Tracy was talking about. I don't know just to say this is just to say that I found it interesting. I would like to take some time to reflect more on the possible studies on the entire things but would thanks out Tracy for the effort. Yeah. And I mean, I'm not looking for a final answer at this point right these are discussion items that are being brought for discussion. And, and, you know, I realize they are kind of big topics a bit, you know, not super clearly defined and the discussion is here to help us better find what the problem is and so that we can then look into solutions. So that's kind of the way I approach this. And so, you know, I'm happy for people to leave it at this for now and then think about it and, you know, let it kind of show any other questions comments. I think I think the ideal workflow would be to have feedbacks looping in from these working groups, flowing through the technical sharing committee and then the TSE then suggest looking at some of these quarterly reports to the project saying that, hey, this is an idea interesting idea brought up this by this working group maybe you have a place to get that thing done. And it could also be a place where in our dev weekly emails we could say, hey, this is an interesting idea which working group brought up so there isn't scope for us to do something in this in this field. I'm sure like the end to end feedback loop, we should keep it flowing. All right. Okay, so we're about out of time. Any final comments. Otherwise, I'll finish just to answer the question. I mean, aren't that also a question about open ended questions, you know, or topics that could be brought up. And I kind of always give people a chance if we have time at the end. And some people hate me for doing this because it's, you know, we kind of like finishing early if possible and typically if you ask, you always get something brought up almost. And, you know, in general, I welcome people even adding stuff to the agenda before the call, you know, don't expect to be given half an hour if the agenda is already pre loaded. But otherwise, it's really a collaborative effort. And so, you know, feel free to add stuff to the agenda if there's anything specific you want to talk about or bring up. If you don't have all the time it would require to fully address it. We at least put it on the radar and we can, you know, allocate more time on the next call or so, if needed. All right. So with that being said, I'm going to close the call on this. Thank you all for joining today. See you next week.