 Hello everyone. Welcome to the TSC call. As I'm sure you're all familiar with, this is a public call. Anybody welcome to join, contribute. There's two requirements to doing so. The first one is to be aware and live by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is currently displayed. And the other part is the cut of conduct, which is linked from the agenda. So with that done, let's get going. Announcements, right. Sure, every week, we send out the dev weekly developer newsletter. Everyone is welcome to add a comment and, and get their content in there. I did have a question this week. If that is if labs are allowed to submit items and the answer is yes absolutely please submit technical items. So this is developed a newsletter by developers for developers. So please help us make it more relevant. Thank you. Yeah, I agree. That's, I mean, we should be inclusive when it comes to this kind of stuff. Thank you, right. Any other announcements anyone wants to make. Yes, I will insert that we probably won't have a call next week, given the traces of, I'm going to be on the road, not sure I can make it. So sounds like there are other people will be missing. So I'll make it official but I don't expect we'll have a call next week. Just be aware. All right, so we have three quarterly reports in the mix. So Avalon was the last one that actually came in. I didn't see any issues being raised. Although not everybody has read it either from what I could see by the number of unchecked marked unchecked marks. Is there any questions anyone know any comments anybody wants to make about Avalon? Avalon repo. If not, what about Ursa? I mean, I just wanted to call out that I did have a comment. Yeah. That, you know, just looking at kind of their analytics numbers, it seems that they've had just kind of a pretty significant decline and kind of the contributors and committers over the last few quarters. So not, I don't know, it sounds like they have then Eugene responded to my note around, you know, some of their plans kind of get more engagement, which is great, but just wanted to like call that out to the group and just because that has kind of been, that was one observation I had. Thank you for commenting. I saw you did that and Eugene answered. And I mean, I don't know what the TSC can do, but I'm glad you spotted that and brought it up. So, thank you for doing that. All right. Back to Ursa. It's the same kind of situation in terms of review I noticed there were quite a few box not checked yet, even though this one was already submitted a year ago. So, a week ago. So I know. Yes, I think I, I made an edit. And I think I like this week and I think I unchecked a lot of people's boxes. Which would, yeah, mine is unchecked now. For whatever reason if I like, I changed like one line, and it unchecked a bunch of people's boxes so I think of considerably more people have read it than have checked it. Good to know. Yeah, I see your comment. Maybe that I raised the review marks. Yep. Okay. But otherwise I didn't see anything new, other than the usual. I have a question that comes to mind only because I'm looking at this right now. Do you want me to remove the required information to from the thing in my Bob there. Have you implemented the repo learner Jason and all your people since last week the vote was to remove that requirement. No, that's not what we said. I actually updated the template because it used to say, have you copied the repo into Jason and all your repos. Well, no, sorry. Actually, yes, that's the formal wording. If you use the new template. I did the template to say, have you implemented repo. No, the common repository structure. In fact, if you look at the other than report. Yes, if you look at the other than report it has the new wording, the question that's actually from the template after I did it. I implemented the common repository structure and all your repos. Okay, so we need people to update there. Of course, you know, I caught hot and we all do it. We all copy, you know, the previous report, which means that if there's a change in the template you don't get it. But so be aware for everybody, you know, be aware everybody once you I mean next time you submit a report, make sure you update that section. And then we have the Bezu report, which I, you know, I have to say it's a bit the same in terms of review quite a few people have not reviewed those reports even though they have been submitted quite a while ago. I don't know what's going on there. Maybe people have already started going on vacation, but I didn't see any reasons to be concerned but I will carry those over to the next call, so that more people have a chance to have seen them and raise any questions if there are any. Okay. One thing we're pointing out I did a separate page on the badging, which was something that was part of the pending badging thing is to have a project prototype it. It took only about an hour, actually an hour and a half because I spent 30 minutes messing around with LFX to try and find a report that didn't exist. So if you scroll down, there's another section, keep going, keep going, keep going, badging. There's another page of what it would look like if we did the badging the only thing that really could get a report for it is the decentralized everything else is just basically reviewing the standards and making your claim as to why you meet the standard. Thank you for highlighting this. I know. I think it's great that you took a stab at implementing it. Thank you for putting on your experience. Hopefully we can have a few more people do the same, and get a bit more, you know, comfortable with the proposal of having this badge system in place. As a reminder, everyone, in case anybody forgot, we have a pretty solid proposal, and the we just haven't decided to implement it yet. We are looking for, I mean the decision was to postpone the final decision to enforce this based on some experimentation that would inform us as to, you know, how much burden we are adding to the projects by imposing them, imposing on them to to, you know, set up this badge system. Daniel, are you still on the queue or you forget to lower your hand. I forgot to lower my hand. No problem. All right. Let's move on then. Is David here? Yes, David. You asked if you would have time. Absolutely. So go ahead. Tell us about the trending community activity section. Thanks. Well, really, I wanted to have a room and share the work that he's done because his start here site is really powering all this but you know Ryan I did make some space on the main wiki page with the redesign to have a new dynamic section where we could you know people what's happening right now in the community instead of just having a static page so I think this is going to be really helpful to let people, you know, find out where interesting things are happening what's going on at any given moment so I'm really excited this is here but mainly I just wanted to you know have a room share and then we could talk about if other sorts of dynamic content would be useful to include. Thank you, David. Aaron, do you want to add anything? Tell us a bit more. Sure. I think it all originated when we wanted to include our help new developers joining and make it easy for them to join Hyperledger and start contributing. In the initial discussions it was all about hey can we tag issues with good first issues or start using those tags which are available and on both GitHub issues and the JIRA. But then we started thinking how can we aggregate all that information under one space so that somebody who is new they can find all that they want by searching over there. That idea evolved and meanwhile I guess Ryan and David they were trying to revamp the Hyperledger Wiki main page that's the one which we see over here and it has these trending topics on top right so this is what is happening within Hyperledger space and the current refresh rate is 6 hours but it can be modified to much more frequent updates and all of this is dynamically pulled in from GitHub sources across repositories. So there is more to do and if there are any ideas which is different from this or additional information which might help that will also be introduced in. And the other update on the same front and in order to increase contributions to Hyperledger is I believe it was Cactus project that has getting started kind of video. If I'm not wrong. So cactus has come up with a concept where they just created a video hey this is how I set up my development environment. And this is how I compile my source code and this is what verification I do after my contribution. And each of them is a small bit like three to five minute video and they are all uploaded on YouTube and anybody who is interested in contributing to that project they just go their search and they can replicate what is seen in the video. So that could be another idea that we can propose to different projects and in fact from and then there are community members in India who are willing to join or make such videos for one of the project this weekend. And what else I think this is the kind of work that is going on in terms of helping new contributors is David is there anything that you wanted me to cover. I think it's great. Thank you. I also wanted to point out that these macros, these plugins that generate that pull this in are available broadly. So the start here project generates some markdown. And if you if your project wants to have more dynamic content in the wiki. You can just look at the main page see how we did it. It's pretty straightforward. Or feel free to ask. I think it's pretty great. It's not refreshed on load I don't know exactly what the refresh time window is for that. It's ours not seconds, but it's, you know, better than a static page that you have to care take. Anybody any comments or questions. That's all right but thank you Aaron and team for doing this. I think it is cool. Kind of interesting to have a global view that actually mixes things, you know, I'll, I mean I'm sure most of us have that experience where you know where we are focusing on specific projects and that kind of gives you a view of what's going on elsewhere which I kind of like the fact that it mixes all of them into a single bucket. I think it's, it's interesting. I guess I missed talk about one more point. So we are trying to bring structure around this and get this work done under framework and that's where contributors experience working group, or whatever the name is not it finalize right so the new working group that we were thinking about that could be a structure where all this kind of work could continue to happen. Yeah, that might excite as well. Unfortunately, there are no much updates because the meeting is scheduled for next week, where we'll go through some of the ideas and come up with a proposal soon. All right. Thank you. So if there's nothing else on this I guess we can move forward with the agenda. So the main other item is the criteria for entering incubation. So I assume everybody knows what this refers to. So, you know, it came up as part of the fire fire fly proposal evaluation. You know, it became pretty clear that we were lacking some solid documentation we could rely on and that the the the proposers could go to to figure out on what basis we would evaluate the proposal. So, there is some general like shared knowledge by at least some of us, based on the story, you know, the history of hyperdager, but we ought to actually do a better job and define what the what the criteria are in a way which I would expect to be similar to the incubation exit criteria. So I asked, I was kind of hoping somebody would step up and volunteer to take a crack at it. That's what I did for the incubation exit criteria. So we took a first draft and then, you know, we kept hashing at it, but nobody has. And since we have time, I think, you know, Daniel kind of suggested we can start collectively collect some criteria discuss with how we go at it, and what might be relevant and maybe that can be enough to get us going hard. Yeah. So, before we get started, I think I said this in the document, but the criteria for incubation is essentially, or I'm sorry, the criteria for, say, active status or the things that you've written are hard and fast right it's either have it or you don't and if you have you're good. And if you don't, you don't. And then we spend all the time arguing over interpretation of what we meant by the criteria. So what I suggested here is, you know, it's going to be hard for us to agree, we might not agree on all the project on all the criteria for all the projects. But if we just list a bunch of criteria that at least some TSE members think are important right, even just the form of sort of like pluses and minuses. And I think that, you know, if your project has sort of like lots more pluses than minuses it's probably going to get approved, and it has more minuses than pluses it's probably not. Right. And I think this is a good way of letting community members gauge whether their project is ready for incubation, and you know, sort of, you know, maybe the pluses and minuses are equal and they can say that you know this is going to be a contentious process maybe I'll wait until it's less contentious. And just this kind of thing and I just think it would be good to sort of make information about this public and what people are deciding on, and get, you know, empower the community with information. Absolutely, I agree with that and that's clearly the intent, you know, is to document it so that people know what to expect at least, you know, to a certain level I agree with you that there may always be some objectivity involved. But, you know, subjectivity involved rather, but at least, you know, I think having some documentation with address this feeling that people, you know, get of adding moving goalposts, which clearly is, you know, to nobody's benefit. I think we all lose when people go through this and then get frustrated, not necessarily by the answer, but by the fact that the answer seems to be changing as they address, you know, points being raised. So, I think that's the, you know, to me the biggest flaw in the current situation is this idea that well, you know, people are being told one thing. They go ahead and address that point and then they say, oh, but there is also this. Oh, but we still can't tell you, yes, because of that, and it just keeps going. At least if we have a lease that kind of gives, you know, a more frame discussion that would scope a little bit things and I think it would help us to because I honestly think there was quite a bit of confusion in. When we're talking about firefly, especially, you know, there are things that sometimes people brought up that I thought, well, wait, this is an exit criteria, not an entering criteria. And, you know, I don't think that's fair to say, well, you should really already have that, although in some cases maybe there is reason to say no, even to enter incubation, you need to have that. You know, you know, I think it's one of the exit criteria would only be confirmation that they still true. So, Dano. So, my experience when we were bringing a basis there was a lot of goals post moving the week that we were going up, you know, there's like double the tennis the TSE call. We didn't get through it the first meeting. There are questions questioning our choice of language questioning all sorts of other things that really were never questioned for other projects. And then the next meeting, before picking up the basic consideration. So, you know, do you approve a different project in the product of different subject about convergence versus versus separation or whatever the exact word was. So, you know, it seems like the standard we have is to move goalposts during the evaluation and that's not a good feel for projects coming in I mean when you look at it we only have what one maybe two projects come in in the last year. So, some sort of a list of these are the questions we're going to ask, even if they're not you have to pass to this level. But if we set the bounds of what is valid for not accepting the project. You know there's probably going to be a force major clause because it's easy can't predict, like if someone comes into some strange patent situation that you've never had before. But I think, you know, there should be some list that gives us a gives new projects coming in a clue of how they're going to be interrogated, because if it's even the slightest bit contentious, or there's a slightest bit of you know reason why people might you know fear this can take away from their project, they're going to come in with teeth beard that's the experience that I've seen over the past few years and it's yes see. Yep, fully agree. Hey, I completely agree to what dano is saying so the kind of in I mean the whatever we're trying to list over here having multiple organizations contributions. So these kind of criterias could be kept for exiting the incubation. So, I mean, for incubation itself for somebody who has a project in their own enterprise. It could be enterprise or their own repository right when they bring up that proposal to hyper lectures we should be more welcoming to them. But we can of course TSE will make a decision whether that's a mature enough project or should we go through a lapse process. If some of the claims that have been made in the project are not true. I would really define that process rather than defining the numbers kind of thing. The other reason for that is also because they could be coming to hyper ledger because they want an open collaboration environment and they see this as a space to get that. All right, thanks. Nathan. We spend a lot of time talking about or at least thinking about how to help our maintainers be more friendly and more welcoming. And the idea of the TSC is that we come from that maintainer community and the hope is that we represent the best and the most welcoming of the folks who are participating as maintainers in the projects. So, one thing I really like about heart suggestion is that we, it lets us be upfront about how there are some factors in proving a project that are subjective. And my hope is that it lets us be really honest about what conversation to expect and also help set the expectation amongst TSC members that we really are looking for ways to help people participate at hyper ledger. And if there's a project that isn't harmful, we're trying to figure out how to help include and help contributors who have that valuable things to add the mission to add those things to our mission. And I think sometimes when we get caught up in the details of, you know, writing down the specifics of the rules that we sometimes lose sight of that that we really are trying to help people contribute and help people add more value to what's going on at hyper ledger. All right, thank you. Good point. Anyone else. Okay, there's no, I mean, does anybody oppose the idea of working, I mean, going through this exercise and developing this. Everybody thinks it's a waste of time. Just checking. I would not expect that but so I suggest we start going down the list I mean there were some criteria they were already, you know, put in comments, like the one that's on the screen from Paul. And there's some, even it's interesting because as soon as you start writing them down, there are questions, you know, that get raised as to what the interpretation is because, you know, when you talk about contributor and maintainer and whatnot is like, Well, how do you define this exactly and so on. So, and by the way, so we have one thing to start from when I starting from scratch completely because there is the heat template right, there is a form that people feel out. I think it's useful to have a look at what the form asked. And in particular, you know, it was clear during the discussion on the firefly proposal that for instance, the role of sponsor was very unclear. It's not defined anywhere. And, you know, they clearly went out of their way to find more sponsors. And I'm not sure it made any difference because you know, it wasn't clear what, you know, whether how much it mattered. Hot your back. Yeah, to follow up on your point. Maybe a good way to do this is I think you wanted to create a new document. And I think if we created a new document and we just have all the TSC members give everybody some some summer homework. Really well anyone who wants to contribute it doesn't just have to be TSC members obviously. But we just all fill out sort of like literally pros and cons in a table. And then we can consolidate and clarify and figure out something we can, you know, a format we can put this in where it's accessible to everyone. So, I mean, there, maybe we should agree on what process we want to use. At the end of the day, we will have to have a full request against the TSC repo, hiding a page that defines the entering incubation, entering criteria. That's my expectation. I think that's, you know, kind of what we have to do to to get consistent with the documentation which has been moved to the TSC repo. Now, I don't know if it's the most effective to have somebody starts pulling a making a pull request. Do we comment on it or do we go first through a some kind of gathering phase where maybe a Google doc document could be used more effectively to kind of like a free for all where people can add what exactly they would they think would make sense. And maybe have this kind of like, you know, first pass where people enter whatever they think makes sense. And then we can start going through the list that we gather in such a way, and figure out, you know, maybe, of course, people can use the comment feature Google doc to question as clarifications. I beg you not to use Google docs, please, please use the wiki Google docs excludes our members in China. And we lost the founding documents for the sawtooth process project project, because they're in a Google doc that no one has a copy of anymore. So I just, please don't make Google docs the first place you go or the second or the third. I would, I would ask you to use the wiki. I have probably against my. That was where I want to go. The problem with the wiki is that it's not interactive like, you know, you have to go in edit mode if somebody does the same at the same time then you're in trouble. That's why it's not, it's not great from a cooperative editing point of view. I'm, I'm open to other solutions. Was that a GitHub wiki would that allow us to come in tonight reply order. So I did enable this. So we could see if this is, is different. In terms of editing experience, I don't think it will be though. So, I know you and I were talking about LF edge. How does LF edge handle this. He was Google docs as far as I know. Well, no, no, no, I mean like, having a new project come in to LF. Yeah, so I was trying to come into LF edge, for instance. Yeah, they have their own process and I don't know that they have a very clearly defined process either to be honest. So someone has pointed out if two people are in edit mode and wiki it's just like live editing you can see what's typing just like Google docs that's true. I'm not sure who Hyperledger project is I assume that's Karen. But that's correct. I want Karen, if two people are editing the same document you, you have a conflict don't you. No, no, I, I project me sorry. Yeah, this is Karen so two people are in the edit mode and in the wiki. It is just like Google docs you can see them editing it'll show you who's in the doc. Well, that's nice to me. Yeah, that sounds that's good news. Thank you Karen for letting us know. I mean, if you if you click update, and someone is still editing you won't see those edits until that person clicks update but if you if two people are in edit mode. You will see it live. Because it was. Okay, that's great news. We went through something the other day where it said, Oh, that page has changed. You have to copy your changes elsewhere before you're going to lose that. And I was like, Well, that's not so great but you know, so maybe it was a different type of situation. So with that being, then I am happy to use the wiki to do what I was talking about. Right. So, we start with the developing a list of criteria. Everybody can have a go at it. I think criteria that they think are relevant. And then we can start hashing through those and have a discussion as to what makes sense, Bobby. We took a whack at this a while ago. And there is some information on the learning materials working group page I put a link in the chat. And if you want to use that location to start an edit page. That's fine. I can curate it a little bit, but it's in the chat. Wait, you took a walk at what. A while ago with Salona, we tried to get best practice badges for a way to report projects are ready to be exited out of incubation and interactive status and we didn't get very far, but I gathered the information and I put it on that page. Okay. That in the chat. Which chat is that. I'm still using rocket chat. Oh, sorry, there was somehow expected to be the last message my bad. Thank you. I see. And the example used was for explorers so that's all the information was when we were trying to document how they got through the process. Interesting. Thank you for bringing that up. Any other ideas. Anybody. And your opinions as to how we should go at this. I like this GitHub wiki it's actually creating an history just like how we have history on code comments. Well, I like it too but I would prefer doesn't appear to support the collaborative editing thing so I really. Yeah, no. I agree. I mean given what has been said about the collaborative aspects of wiki. I don't see the point of moving to GitHub wiki. Let's stick with the wiki we have. So, I think, you know, we should, we should probably have a different page. I don't know if we want to edit that one. I don't know if. And I think, rather than using Bobby's page as is I think we should, you know, people should look into this and see if there are things they are getting inspired, you know, with and then bring those in. But I just don't know whether we create a new page or if we use that same page I think we ought to use a different page. So maybe we create a page that says incubation exit criteria. Can you create that right. And then we can link that from the. And people can have go at entering their criteria. It's entry for incubation not exit right you said exit. Yes. Did I say exit I'm sorry. So if the goal is to not have a specific standardized objective list. Should we use a word like considerations instead of criteria. Something you know since we're going to be soft about these rules to begin with. Okay, that's fine with me. I mean we can start with this I agree that some may not be. I mean, you know, suppose you could say some criteria softer than we can be softer than others but I'm fine with considerations. I think it's definitely a step in the right direction anyway. How many people can I did this collaboratively Karen do you know there's limit we can all stop it doing like right now. There's there are practical limits but it's not, you know, So you'll see that I'm the only person editing this right now, as more people click the edit button up here, I see a rune is editing right so I see where people are doing the thing so just be excellent to one another and go for So, I mean, one thing I actually was interested in discussing is that I expect Daniel will add is, you know, whether a project should already be open source somehow. I thought this was, you know, something that definitely, you know, turn some people off in the firefly case. I was wondering if, if, you know, some people felt differently about this. Gary. The, well, it's funny because it's funny you brought up that point. I guess you to me, I think that the code base should exist. And, you know, maybe maybe it does make I guess I would say in general right the project should have probably been I was just trying to think about like Apache projects right. Just looking because again, I think we're becoming more like Apache than what we started out to be. I don't know of a case in general right of anything that's that hasn't already been like open source, you know in open source right. You know, established, you know, a few of the kind of, you know, whatever ground rules right a few of the main ones for entry criteria so yeah I do think, you know, an open source code base, the code base should probably have already been open sourced right, you know should be obviously in the open, probably all the licensing stuff should have probably been taken care of right if they want to make agreement on that stuff so yeah I think it does actually make make sense. Yeah, so it raises the question about stuff right if people I guess I'll put it this way if people are committed to doing this it shouldn't committed to following the intent of why the stuff was here. And it shouldn't really matter if their project makes it to hyper ledger or is open sourced, you know, as open source, right. And so I mean Donald just read my mind, I was going to say maybe it should be available with an Apache license, you know, there are certain things like this we can set as a minimum. But, you know, there is ambiguity as to what it means to have already been open source because to me was unfortunate in Firefly I think the timing was wrong in the in that they, they first submitted their proposal. Even before the code was made available at all, which I think was unfortunate. I mean they quickly try to catch up and open their code anyway, but it seemed like, you know, Donald maybe you can speak to this, you expected more than just the code being available. And more like, you know, they have been open source for a while. And I think so. Yeah, the difference there for me was, you know, they wanted to bring the code in, you know, I looked up before you prove this is what we're getting into. Because it turned out there are stuff like gpl issues. But their response was well we'll share it with you privately. And for an open source project it shouldn't matter if it's being private or not. Every other project came in with I think with the exception of hyper ledger and saw tooth in like the first six months, had some sort of an open source board base that have been out for a while, whether it was labs, whether it came in from some external source have an open source, an open invisible. Because, you know, I guess one of the concerns is, you know, I don't, I'm not sure. I don't think it was happening in this project. But I think there's other projects where companies might have a project that's dying inside you know let's just throw it over the wall. That's been an issue with Apache projects, and I don't want to become an issue with hyper ledger projects to our companies like you know we're going to cancel this project let's just give it open source to hyper ledger to see what they do with it. Hyper ledger to become that sort of place. I don't think there's any projects that's happened to us yet, but I want to make sure that we don't get that happen hyper ledger. I fully support the sentiment I can tell you in my company, just to name one, we have had that case where people say hey, you know, we'd like to make this, you know we developed all this code and now we don't know what to do with it so can we contribute it and I always say no hyper ledger is not a dumping ground for your old code. Yeah, exactly right now right I mean prior to my exit from your company. I didn't know you took over from Marvin but I'm glad that they finally have somebody like you in charge but the. That's the same thing right like you want to open source it I was always like right we have open source right we can put it under either the IBM dot like as IBM we could have put under IBM Tom, we could have put it under IBM blockchain right put it out an open source and then figure out, you know, one and I think to a degree right I'm not always sure why like labs projects don't follow that same thing that's a whole different story right if you truly want to do open source and you want to build a community, then go do it. Right, and then you know I think that's when it makes it easier to to to bring it over here right because yeah you don't want stuff being a dumping ground and I think that's the primary motivation between the right for. I don't think it's so much of a control thing to it's like that you know, it's that somebody can, if we're going to put it over here what are the promises that we that that hyper ledger is making to, you know, people right that the code that came under hyper ledger is crazy right it's not going to be it's fairly governed blah blah blah right that's the those are the reasons for any of this stuff right. Yeah, but so I think I mean let's be careful because the labs, you know, we created it to be personally light process or based right so to me it's okay for people to dump code on the lab repo because if nothing happens there will will archive potentially like six months later or something like this, and the cost is very minimal. Yeah yeah sorry I didn't mean we should add more process to the labs I was just saying that if for some reason like something doesn't make it through like there's some weird reason they can't become a lab, if they truly had the intent of doing open source and wanted to start something, they should be able to go do it, you know they should just go ahead and do it right. The fact that they're not a lab shouldn't mean the fact that they shouldn't go do it that's that that's that's the proof in the pudding to me right is that you were willing to go put it out in open source. But so I think it is fair to say that, you know, the code should be available at the time people, you know, in open source at the time people make a proposal to create a project with it around that code. I don't think we can really put the time, you know, limit kind of thing like, oh it's been open source for six months at least, or that, you know, there are already several companies that are people contributors that have participated in this project that that's becomes much harder I think. The other problem with this hard number like that is people will absolutely find ways to game it. So I think we need to put a quality statement. That's why I want it traded equality because yes we're going to debate it. But if it you know if you're, if you have legit open source software at this level that we're going to have for entry it's going to be obvious that you're faking it or that it's legit. It's also sensitive to this the point somebody made along the way, which is that, you know, incubation is also a way to grow your community. So, we can't require people, you know, expect people to have already built a community because they even bother come to hyperledger in the initial project proposal. We always had, you know, two companies I think in most cases we are two companies committing resources to it. There was typically one company that developed the code and the other say, Yeah, I think this is interesting and once you bring it to hyperledger, I commit to working on it. And by the way, whether it happened or not is a different story but at least there was a statement, you know, made at the time of the proposal, which I think is reasonable and should be enough for us to say, Okay, fair enough. We can go with that. There's a commitment to open source of just the community there's a commitment to governance that you can have an open governance there's a process for maintainers. And for you know if you're just exposing an internal company project, you know the hierarchy is built into the teams know the team lead makes most of the decisions when there's a conflict, or there is some established company process for doing that. And, you know, I think that's my main reason for wanting to have at the open source somewhere is to make sure that you have at least gone through those considerations, which is why I think six months is too long as a minimum. But you know I think you know two hours is too short. So, Okay, that's interesting point. I mean, you think so I don't know if it really would agree with this heart. I won't I'd send this in chat but I agree with data and I think there's a difference between open source software and open source development right. And that's essentially what people seem to be saying at least to me right open source software is just code that's public right open source development is all this additional framework on the code, you know, governance updates maintainers, you know support all this other stuff that really, you know, sort of lets things happen. And I think there's a big distinction between these things that I think in hyper ledger really about open source development, and not necessarily just open source software. And I think it's important to emphasize this distinction. I hope that made sense. Yeah, no, it makes sense. Thank you. So for now it seems like mostly Daniel was chipped in and started writing. I, we don't necessarily have to do it now I may. People may want to take some time to do that but I think that's a reasonable process to try and develop those this list of considerations, which is what we call them. So we have five minutes left. If anybody wants to bring up any of such questions we can already kind of see where people stand I think that's useful. Otherwise, we can continue adding this page offline. It's fine. We can have that go on for a while. I suspect that you know I, I suggest that we do a little bit of that and then, you know we start discussing those fun just like we did now. We can start on the calls. So we can, you know, try to firm up the list and clarify and figure out if there are things for which, you know, the points are controversial people don't want them. Kind of like that doesn't make sense. Gary. Yeah, makes sense question. How do we time box and exercise like should this so that we don't go into analysis paralysis and then everybody coming back and revisiting it again if this is the because right this started a long time ago and we speak we're making progress I feel but I don't know that I still don't see a path to close whatever that means. We just started building that list, literally. We've been talking about this whole process like for a long time. No, badging everything right. I guess, but that's not the same. Let's not confuse everything. This is just about this entering incubation evaluation that we went through with firefly that brought up this flaw that we have where we have no documentation to frame the evaluation of a project proposal, and we only started this process. What was it last week or the week before after the global forum. So I agree with you we don't want that to drag on for six months, but I think maybe you know it takes a month or so and then we say okay enough. I agree to leave it open for now see how it evolves. Hopefully the list will change quite quickly initially and then things will set down. Okay. Yeah, I guess that seems fair but at some point right. You got to say, like, speak now or forever hold your piece. I agree and this is you know the same is true for the criteria for that matter. That's what we did. So, we're almost out of time. I'm happy to close the call now and you know maybe people can use the few minutes left to think about what's already written and what they would like to add to this list. I think what Dano did is reasonable put your name in front if you want, otherwise will chase you anyway. I think you know I encourage people to think about this and add to the list for now. And you can ask questions, you know feel free and Karen thank you for helping us with the usage of the, you know, the wiki. You can ask questions and comment at the pay at the bottom of the page as well. Okay, so let's try to have a discussion offline and use the calls to get deeper into any questions that may be, you know, that may come up. Sounds good. All right. Don't see me more hands up. So, let's call it a day. Thank you all for joining. We'll talk again soon. I don't think next week but the following week for sure. All right.