 Alright, thank you. Hello everyone, welcome to the TSC call. As you all know, I think I'm looking at the list of participants and I only see it in no other name so I think you all know the drill we have to go through. I have to remind you of the antitrust policy, as well as the code of conduct. Other than that, everybody is welcome to join and contribute to this call. So, with that taken care of getting lawyers happy, we can move forward with the meeting. First, I want to start with a bunch of reminders. I will do that until we reach the deadline of those things. Well, the weekly developer newsletter is an ongoing thing. There is the mentorship program. There's still time to submit the project proposal. It's until March 11, so I encourage you to look into it. It's a great opportunity to get other people on board. And then there is the Hyperledia Global Forum. There's a call for proposals has been sent out and it closes on March 12. So please do subscribe, submit proposals. So do we have Ellen on the call? Yeah, Ellen, I see you. Good morning. Hey, hi. I'll let you take care of that piece. Oh, sure. Thank you so much. I've created a wiki page for the White Paper and Greenhouse Graphic Update Task Force. On that wiki page, Anthony and Hart have already indicated that they'd like to participate in this effort. If you're new or anybody on this or you know anybody who might want to join us as we look at the Hyperledia Intro White Paper and the Greenhouse Image Graphic, which I know I believe has been brought up before about being problematic to certain respects. If you have opinions or want to share, want to be a part of it, please add your name to the participant list. We're getting a our first kickoff meeting going. So the time commitment should be relatively light. We will be leveraging some technical writer and, you know, LF graphics teams to kind of do the dirty work. So, hoping that we can have a lot of folks join us and help with some of the outline and editing and we can go from there. So please, please join us all are encouraged. And then I will actually join this task force. I mean, as you may all know, or should all know, this has been, you know, the confusion about the umbrella greenhouse kind of picture has been discussed many times brought up. And so this is our chance to actually help improve the situation. So I encourage, you know, well, maybe not it we maybe not want everybody on the task force but you know it'd be nice to have a few people who are motivated enough to try and make a difference. All right, thank you. Any other announcements from anyone. Well, I will interject a question then. I don't know if anybody has the answers. This is towards the staff. There's been some of us were discussing proposals to submit to the global forum. And there was the question about, you know, how many, how many submissions have been made and I'll be more specific there was this question there was this idea or we could have a series of presentations on this global theme of interoperability. And, you know, we're discussing well is that does that have any chance to be accepted. And, you know, so I said, well, I think in the past there's been a lot of submissions so it's not very likely it would be allocated a whole series of presentations, but I was wondering if the staff has near input on that. You mean like like a track during the two three days plan on interop. I don't know if I would call that a track but at least you know it was like we're talking about having two or three presentation and a panel. Yeah, I mean, the submissions are coming in. Okay, I think any quality submission is either going to get into this calendar, get into the agenda or frankly be fodder for a lot of the other places we have to talk about things. There's a lot of submissions in the hyperledger ecosystem so we really would encourage, I think people to submit if there's if there's like a series of different talks, or you think they build upon each other, submit them independently and I'm sure the program committee will look at them kind of in total and, and make a good call on that front. We're almost ready to announce the program committee. So that's that's well timed in this front but yeah. Okay, you heard that. Yep. Sorry, I just wanted to chime in. I think that the question really is, would each of those talks be evaluated separately and submitter would get a feedback on you know three out of five are make sense but student, or should it be evaluated as a single and, and then you know it has to be differently allocated in the program, and also there is a risk running running into a risk of declining it because some content was good but not all of it. I mean, for us it was mostly because, you know, if we were told there's no chance you can have that many slots then we would frame things a bit differently to still cover the, the cracks of the matter we want to cover. And so, it's almost like, can we do this and if not, we'll do that. And, you know, just submitting and pieces and having some pieces except that others not doesn't quite work but I suppose we could adjust after. That's okay. Well, thank you very much. I think we can deal with it. The thing is that program committee will be providing feedback on all of the talks. So I'm sure it can be just very flexible. And I would say submit the way that you want to submit and the committee will work with you on it. All right, thank you. Thanks for that input. I thought you heard that right hot is the guilty. Thanks, and I heard. Thanks for asking. You're welcome. I figured it was an opportunity to get an answer right away so. All right, so with that taken care of if there is no other questions or announcements. Let's go to the quality reports. They were two reports submitted. One on grade one on transact. I did they were they just submitted so I will understand if not everybody has other chance to look at them yet, but nevertheless, at least, you know, well I want to ask if anybody has any questions already or comments, they want to bring up at this point. And if not, I didn't see, I mean the reports themselves didn't call for any specific issues to be brought up to the TSE so I don't think there is anything specific for us to do or talk about in this regard. Yeah, and I look now and I see most people have already checked their boxes saying they reviewed it so I think we're in pretty good shape. All right, so I don't see any. And raised. I will take it that we are in good shape. So, let's get to the crux of this meeting. I see rise eager and already switched to that. So we received the request to move the areas project from to from incubation to active status. I want to commend the effort from the project and putting a, you know, extensive report together. I don't think we've seen that quite, you know, to that extent before, very well done. And so, I didn't see many comments on the, on the wiki page but this is your chance. I know there was initially a little bit of back and forth some respect with we are the CIA badges. This has been taken care of. So, does anybody have any questions or comments they want to make on this. Otherwise, maybe Steven you can take us through the, you know, high level crux of the application. Yep. You know, Aries has been around for year and a half. It started in March of 2019. The vision has evolved a little from what was put in in the original proposal and I think that caused a delay in, in this request we didn't quite know as a community. We didn't know what it would mean to be ready to go. So it has areas has at this point fewer shared components than we originally thought there would be we thought there would be, you know, this core single code base, and a bunch of frameworks built on top of this core base, as it turned out. The core is the set of RFCs that define protocols and the actual implementations the frameworks have been created more or less independently. I think Indy as the core base, one in particular Aries go being completely independent of Aries there of Indy not using Indy at all. As we move forward, that that will will adjust and those two are merging together and that will probably happen in the next few months, but in the meantime, there's been a ton of, of action, both inside the community in building the components and then outside the community using the components just flat out taking the code and, and building solutions, both POC is production and so on. The state is such that it's pretty mature. And we're at a point where we definitely think there shouldn't be that incubation tag on the on the project but it should be active. And that's what this efforts been about. Alright, thank you. Back to the TSC members. Does anybody have any questions or comments. Yes, Tracy, please. I moved to allow areas to move to active. Hot. That was second Tracy's proposal. Now you've raised your hands just to move. Let's not get too formal guys. Alright, so we're going to have a call for vote. I should do that. Oh, let's do it by. Well, I guess we could use the raising hands since you seem to like this. I want to do that on the zoom window. I don't have a favor can thumb up. Wait, I lost this. Where is that button? I don't have the button to raise my head. I keep seeing everybody raise their hand or thumbs up. This is like super cool. Could we not do this. Can I just do a roll call vote please. Okay. Yes, Angelo. Angelo on the matter before the TSC how do you vote. I second. Okay. No, you have to approve or not. I approve. I know. Yes. I run. I'm with it. I approve. Yes, I approve. Bobby. Yes, approve. Yeah. Yes, approve. David. Yes. Gary is not able to answer. Yes. Yes. Grace. Approve. Heart. Yes. Maria. Yes. Nathan. Yes. Tracy. Yep. Troy. Yes. The matter before the TSC. You know, passes with. Two abstentions. Gary and Mark were out of the meeting so they could not vote. Yep. Okay. Thanks so much. That's awesome. See, it was worth trying. Isn't it? It was. I'm glad because I encourage you to. I was like, come on, don't be so shy. Try. Yeah. Surprise. So I'm glad this is great. I think it's well deserved. And you know, as I've said before, the one thing that always blocks people or projects, I should say, is the diversity when we talk about, you know, having many different contributors from different, you know, with different affiliations. And I think areas of all projects within hyperledger is the. Largest diversity by far. So. I think it's well deserved. You can do the other. Booming projects. So keep up the good work. All right. So that's great. Didn't take very long. So let's move on. I wanted to go back to the project maturity. And slash badging proposal. So then I'll put a proposal together quite a few weeks ago. It's made of two parts. The, there is definition of badges itself. And then there is the process for, you know, how the badges are being managed. And the second part created a little bit of concerns among some of us. And we discussed this on the call. And basically, Daniel was asked to revise it to kind of make it a bit less. I don't see less formal, but less maybe procedural. And so to try to, you know, encourage collaboration as much as possible and try to, you know, even though things can go bad, it doesn't have to be all focused on, you know, how it's going to go bad and what we do when it's going to be bad. So, uh, Daniel did revise the process. And so I'll let you talk a little bit about that. I know if you will. So that's okay. Same page. Right. Could you click on the process badging project badging subpage? Yeah, right there. The link. Right. So this was the, yeah, the revision I talked about. Um, so, you know, working in. Ethereum and DeFi. And I didn't even follow up with things. You hadn't just started to think from the worst case scenario and work backwards because that has to be what happens. So everybody is this from the opposite approach with the worst case scenario gets the least amount of text. Um, so it's still the same basic process we had before. Um, just with less prescriptive description on what happens when things start to go bad. Um, the project still self-certified for the badges. Um, they put it in their quarterly reports sticking with that idea for the cadence. Um, and you'll note when I updated the other page with the, um, with the bad frequencies, everything's either a year or perpetual. So going forward, we add new badges if there used to be a quarterly, you know, there used to be something more, more frequent than yearly. Um, so it should probably have some alignment to quarterly so that every year, like on the second quarter, everyone recertified bad days or they set some sort of pattern in their reports that they do a different one each week. I mean, each quarter. So one of the things I really liked about the high village areas proposal is they provide a really good example is what I was thinking of when you self certified and find the evidence. Um, they listed the, the sub part and they provided a description of what they said and they had a link to go to it. And that is what I had envisioned in my mind when I said that these badges self certified and this can either be on a separate page or part of the quarterly reports. And again, this is done quarterly. And if everyone's happy with what's presented, you know, process ends here, your badge goes up. Um, we believe the self certifications. Uh, we, we trust the projects to work well. The next step is discussion. And this is where I think things were changed the most. Um, changing the perspective of how do you come in when you're not so certain about a self certification? Um, the requirement is, if anyone has to disagrees with it, they have to discuss it with the team, um, probably in one of their public forums, either on their, they're, you know, on a video call or in a chat room or in their email list. And, you know, discuss about, there's, you know, three outcomes that could come from that either, you know, either the badge could be withdrawn. The objection could be withdrawn or there could be more evidence presented because a lot of these discussions, it's a question of, is this the right kind of evidence we're looking for? Um, but like any mediation, there's a chance of things may come to an impasse. Um, you know, there may be a dispute about, you know, some particular item where the team feels that they earned a badge and the person, you know, who's, who's challenging it in essence, that disagrees. So the only step after that, they can't come to a mutual resolution and a mutual resolution step have to be attempted first before they can do this. And then whoever's challenging it can ask the TSC to rule on it. The TSC does not have to take it up. And I didn't write in any formal procedures on here that they, the TSC, when it's challenged, uh, handles how they're going to, you know, describe how they're going to do it rather than prescribing it ahead of time. And that's where a lot of the text from the previous one came from. And the general process is that if it's challenged, if it goes to TSC, um, the TSC, if they vote to take it away, it gets taken away. Otherwise it stands. And so there's no, you know, time frame I have to object to this amount of time or, you know, this amount of time to cure it or any sorts of windows like that. Um, just going to have to trust that the, the mood of the TSC is that they don't handle it fairly. And if we're wrong, we can adjust, um, stuff then. But, you know, really when it gets down to resolution, um, there's been some sort of a failure anyway. So, um, you know, it's going to be contentious anyway, but it's going to be a little bit of a mess. But it's going to be a little bit of a mess. And it's going to be a little bit of a mess at that point. So there's, you know, I don't see the value, you know, We're not, we're not the, we're not the court system. Not a mechanical system. When it gets to this point of resolution. So there's probably, you know, TSC is probably going to have some of their own discussions. In band and out of band. And if it gets to a vote, things have really failed. But, you know, this is a, you know, sometimes it might happen. So. When that's the end of the process there. Um, you know, if you scroll down the screen a couple of bits about, can you scroll down for two more bullet points? Yeah. The issue about renewable and perpetual batch is about how frequently you get it. And then I struck through the original stuff. You have a taste for people who view it to see what was the original proposal. Um, whole thing there is just struck through. Like you with the legislation. This would not go in. Um, the TSC, but it may or may not stay on the wiki. I think that's a good point. Thank you. And so on the other page, I know you did some reformatting cleanup, which, but it was there for many. That's what I was thought, right? It's only for matters. There was one change that I think Tracy requested. For the legal batch. Um, because, you know, licensing isn't as you strict. If the, if the governing committee, the governing. The governing committee approves a license exception, then, you know, you passed it, obviously. So I think that's a good point. Can you go back to the other page? Right. I think Grace has her hand up. Yeah, Grace. Thanks, Dan. This is great. Just first of all, but I just have one quick question on the bad process. So I think. I like the badges that you proposed. It's kind of our starting points, but I imagine maybe I will. We'll add some new badges. Uh, maybe diversity inclusion being one, maybe. Uh, how would we account for, uh, adding new badges to, um, uh, to the proposal? Would that just be a TSC decision? I'm just not sure. I saw that in the doc. I did not consider that in the doc. I would consider that to be a separate proposal. To add it as an eligible badge. And there would be. These badges came almost entirely whole cloth from the active requirements and was a starting point. So I'm happy to add and remove before we go for the first pass, but I also expect in the future, more badges will be added and removed. There was discussion. Other badge about responsiveness to issues that I think is a great one. We should consider adding stuff that goes above and beyond what simply takes to be active. Um, and stuff like D and I. And, um, the E I and. I think it's a good question, Grace, but I do think the answer is, yeah, people can make proposals that would go through the TSC. You say, Hey, I would like to propose a new badge and you make a spread. And with the TSC could vote on that. And then it would be added. If it's accepted. Yeah, that makes sense. Yeah. Thank you. And I don't think we need to have that written into this. That's for me kind of like what I would expect a normal part of the process. Arun. Quick question. So will, will those objections by, let's say contributors. Will those be made publicly available? I don't think that would be public. I don't know if there would be a formal form to fill out. I object on this grounds and here's my standards. And I expect this level of jurisdiction. I don't think we're going to go to that formality, but if you pay attention to the projects, you would see it. Does that answer your question? Yeah. You're okay with that. I mean, I'm trying to understand what the. No, the reason behind that was trying to understand. So I mean, because the first step is to get involved with maintainers. Trying to see if. The same things do not repeat. Now and then, right. So that was the kind of thing which I was, that was the thought process, which was going through in my mind. Okay. Yep. And I saw. Sorry, go ahead. So it makes the same objection to multiple projects. Maybe that's something we should bubble up to the TSC and. Wish out to all the projects equally. Is that your concern? Similar objections. Let's say it. The objection is valued for three months and then similar objection comes again. Or maybe similar objection. Or from some other people. Yeah, that's a good point. And I, you know, I also don't think. I mean, you know, I please speaking for myself, I tend to think when you talk like this, I think it seems to be pretty adversarial. Yeah. But in fact, I think in reality, the most likely scenario is, you know, it's not going to be adversarial in nature. It's going to be just based on different understanding of expectations, but what's behind the badge and how it should be implemented. And that's why I would hope for more, you know, cases where it's a friendly. You know, fairly friendly discussion. Say, Hey, I don't think that should, you know, that qualifies because these are that, and then they may be missing this or disagreement of views, you know, and say, well, I didn't think it was like this. And then you take it to the TSE and the TSE can roll and hopefully you can clarify. Update the definition of the badges and. I would hope that we can, you know, refine the model as we move forward. But your point is good. I don't know how we prevent people from repeatedly, you know, object to some badge. Tracy. Yeah, so I think I put this in the other. Yeah. The other page, but I think, you know, if we can make the criteria completely objective. Then we can probably do something whereby, you know, checking the LFN. Analytics right to see if they follow within a range. So I included on the other page that DCI badging. Proposal that exists out there. From chaos. And, you know, they have a ranges. It's in the. It's in the. The comments. So the. It's probably the very last one right. So in here, right? They have different percentages of the requirements met to get the different things very similar to the CIA badge. That the areas folks should be familiar with rates as far as, you know, whether it's pending passing. Or, you know, they exceed basically. So, you know, I, I'm wondering is there a way for us to make our badges such that we can look at the LF analytics tool, get the result back programmatically and be able to issue the badge without somebody having to claim that they. Should get a badge. You know, and that makes it very objective and no kind of discussion back and forth. As far as the, you know, challenges might be, might come up. I also really liked the project encouragement of, you know, the badge could like be automatically unlocked. It would make a pleasant surprise. Yeah. So that, you know, I think for some badges for sure, it should be pretty simple. I don't know if it works for all badges, but if we could do that, at least for some, that would already be. You know, reduce the possible friction. But I don't know how feasible it is. Nathan, I saw you on mute there for a second. Yeah. I think there's at least a few badges we could probably do this way, though. I don't know how hard the tooling would be. You know, if we could automatically unlock certain thresholds of contributors or certain organizational diversity badges, just off the statistics that we have in the analytics site, it would make a really nice pleasant surprise for the projects. And I think could serve as something that's quite encouraging. Yeah. And I mean, you know, the objective, they works both ways, right? Because it's, I mean, we saw it with areas, for instance, they were, they didn't think they would qualify to move to active status, right? And we had to say, but wait, have you seriously considered that? Maybe you'd be surprised. And, you know, it's similar here. You're going to have people who are, you know, more aggressive than others. The people are going to aggressively want to claim badges and others who will shy away and, you know, I don't think we qualify. And there'll be some discrepancy. Because of that. That's, that's the human factor that, you know, unless you have tools that automate this, you're going to have to deal with. So I don't know. I mean, Tracy, I like the idea of having these kind of, like, you know, different levels. I, my concern is, unless it's automatic, like you would, you know, you're going to have to do it. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. My concern is, unless it's automatic, like you were just talking about this adds yet another, it makes it even more subjective. I'm wondering if it doesn't, which makes it even harder. It's like, well, not only you're asking me, I, I, you know, I qualify or not, but by how much, if I'm already not sure about the answer, asking me to which level makes it maybe worse. I don't know. Yeah, I think it has to be automatic. And, you know, I think that there were some, some attempts, if you will, from the X analytics folks, right? And our discussions to talk about, you know, here's the, you know, X number of criteria that, that we'd like to see. And I think if we could have them basically be able to validate certain criteria that we're making, that's, that, that's key. All right. Any other comments or thoughts? I want to expand on what Tracy just said there. As far as I know, hyperledger would be the first. So this could be something that hyperledger pioneers. And because it would become available in insights, it may be much more broadly adopted. So I would really be, I think it would really be awesome if we could get these features into insights and possibly into the broader open source community. That's a good point. Do we have resources to develop something like this? Maybe that's Christian for Brian. I don't know. I, I'd be willing to spend money. And I bet I could find others at the Linux Foundation interested in spending money on automating parts of this. So, um, can't, can't say it's an open wallet, but yeah. Okay. Well, that's encouraging. At least you're not saying, no, no, don't, don't even think about it. Forget it. Okay. This is what I was picturing. Like here on your bat on your card page for your project, there could be a badge like right here. Yeah. And then that would spread to other projects. I would hope. I have to say, I mean, you know, I think a tool also. It, uh, I mean, one of my concerns about the proposal, I really like the proposal and thank you, Daniel for, you know, putting the, put the proposal together. I like it. I think it makes sense. It would be, you know, in my opinion, it's progress from what we have today. My only concern is the cost of maintenance of those badges. We're putting on the projects. And here I would, you know, like to hear a little bit, you know, for sure. I wouldn't want us to just say, yep, we're going to impose that on all the projects. Just suck it up. Because I'm afraid they're maintainers going to bad, react badly and say, oh, thank you, TSE. Now we have to do all this bureaucratic crap. And they may see that as a, you know, something. You can't let's just streamline this and slipstreaming them with the quarterly reports. Yes. So I mean, they really have to do bureaucratic crap. We're just giving them an objective standard to say, well, here's some things you can report on rather than these questions about, well, what do you have to ask the TSE that are objective and provide actual numbers for, not numbers, but necessarily more, more solid feedback is to help with the project rather than, are you healthy? Yeah. No, I hear you. Yeah. No, I hear you. And I, you know, I'm talking, I can talk both sides of that. Oh, that's a argument. Grace has their hand up. Yeah, I think, you know, I'd be excited to try this out. I think there's always ways to improve and iterate. I think the solving for one of the biggest challenges or criticism that we get is, you know, incubation active really don't mean what you think they mean in the public. Yes. So being able to say, you know, actually like this is how we're evaluating how projects are, you know, embedding in the quarterly report I think is a great idea and create some system around it. Do I think we'll have to iterate a little and maybe in three, six months say, okay, what worked, what didn't, you know, let's iterate a little. I think that's, that's great. But I think this really sets us on the right path if that makes sense. So, yes. And so just want to kind of keep that in mind of kind of the problem we're solving. Yeah, no, no, I agree. You're absolutely right. So I think that's correct. Angelo. Yes, thank you. I was feeling the following. I was feeling the following. If you are, if you are giving out objective clear criteria to assign these badges at this point, what the problem to me becomes more these criteria themselves. I mean, if you have a clear way to compute a given a given badge, then why do we need to provide anything at all? I mean, in the sense that we just put out the criteria for which certain we think certain badges make sense and how to compute them out to compute this criteria. Then it's up to the project. If they want to publish this, they want to get this criteria. If they think that this badge will make their project better. Why we should compute this criteria for them? I mean, we should only define what the criteria is. And the algorithm to compute it. Yeah, so, so. Well, there are two things in what you say. I mean, I think there's value in having badges that show with the outcome of the evaluation is whether they should be forced onto everybody or whether we can leave that as some of voluntary activity from for the projects. I don't know that interesting idea. So there is a question now for us is that, you know, what I'm not sure about is I can see that. I mean, does anybody think we should just not do any of this? Seems like people who have been speaking are more or less in support of this. Yeah, let's keep working on this. I would be happy to say yes, let's approve this at the same time. You know, I, we have a bunch of questions that have been raised that for which we don't have an answer yet. So there's like the tooling aspect. Can we make some of this automatic? We're not going to have an answer of this, but this right away. Do we stop manually and then if there's a tool that comes along then at some point we can say now you can stop doing that and really just use the tool. Do we want to say, okay, projects go ahead and start implementing this or do we say that's the rule of the law now, the rule of the land, or do we say, let's try this, you know, let's give ourselves some trial period and say, for the next six months people should stop working with those badges, see what happens. I don't know. I'm just speaking out loud there. Tracy. So I guess I might speak against this at the moment, because I think if we do something like this, it potentially stops us from moving forward with something that is automated. But I guess, you know, two questions that I have, one, do we have any projects on the call right now that would be to try all this and see how painful it is. And then, you know, if there is great, but I, I'm a little leery to force this on everybody at the moment when we don't know of the total overhead that is going to cause. Yeah. Yeah, that's a bit what I was thinking. So thank you. So I'm in favor of, of reducing the burden on, on project reports as you, I mean, I would, I would prefer to try out as possible to automate before we push it. Okay. Angelo. Yeah, just to say that I'm personally against any pattern holistic approach, we should not tell the projects that we should not force the project to do this. This things, we should put it, if we think that the badges can help, that should contain an automatic incentive for the project to say, oh, we should, we should compute out the metrics that allow us to, to put the badge in place. So once the TSC gives us the definition of the badges and how to compute the metrics. If they really make sense, there will be an automatic incentive for the project makes sense. But what it means that who wants to use this project out from, from the community, from the, from, from the community or whatever a company wants to use this project. It will have an incentive looking at the, it will look at these badges. If it doesn't find these badges, you will not choose the project. So you see, we have an automatic incentive mechanism that is input in place without being paternalistic, it's just a competition in, in, in place. Yep. No, sounds good. Thank you. Anyone else? I think, you know, so what I'm hearing is, you know, not, you know, people are kind of supportive of the proposal, but not, you know, we are clearly not ready to just declare, yes, we'll adopt it willy-nilly and everybody, force it on everybody yet. I think it seems like we agree, maybe a trial period would be interesting to do. So yeah, that, that I think Tracy's question was, which project is volunteering to do this? I mean, we don't have to have an answer now, but do we know of any yet? Basically, we'll do it on their next quarter of the report. Cool. Dave, maybe we can try to do that for fabric, put you on the spot. Dave, Dave Maynard? He's not responding. I'm interested in looking into it for fabric, so I can try and give it a shot that tentatively for long time. I may need some help from my colleagues there, but I think it's something that I'm interested in doing. And obviously, you know, the door is not closed. So if other projects are interested in trying it out, I think they should do that. So we can basically inform the projects that there is this system we are developing. We're interesting feedback of, about, you know, what it, what it actually means to, to, to implement this proposal. And then we can, based on the feedback we get and the experiment, you know, we can rediscuss this. Does that sound like a reasonable way forward, Dano? Yeah, that sounds reasonable. And, you know, because of my workload, I don't have time to rework the badges to put formal automated systems in to, to judge it or even set the standards for those. So people are interested in seeing those, feel free to propose them. I think that's something we need is, if you feel that the automated numbers are important and what those numbers should be, please help specify those. Yes, absolutely. Thank you. I mean, I'm following on that front, there's no doubt that, you know, I'm pretty sure that as we implement those, we are going to come up with questions and say, oh, what, what about this? What about that? And we'll have to refine the definition. And I mean, Grace said it earlier, I think we will have to iterate for, for a while at least, before we can settle on something that actually makes sense where people are not left with a bunch of questions. I mean, we've seen it, even with the executive criteria of the, of incubation, right? People have questions, say, well, what does that mean exactly? And we had some, we made some changes over time. So I think here I'll be the same. Okay, I'm happy to leave it at that for now. Any other comments, final comments on this? What was it? I think we're done with that. And that's all I had on the agenda. I don't know if there's anything else anybody wants to bring up now. We have almost 15 minutes left. But otherwise, I, you know, I'm happy to close the call earlier and ask everybody to spend the next 15 minutes that they won't have to spend on the call and looking into some of the pending issues we have, there's a whole bunch of issues that we have raised, not all of them actually, and maybe that's a mistake. I should capture that. But, you know, we still have several items that we're going to be discussing. So we have the SIG discussion that Tracy had that left pending need, you know, work. There is the, just off the top of my head, there is the story about the sponsors for the labs. So there is a bunch of things that have been raised. And for which we need like people to chime in and help out making progress so that we can come to that. So I'm happy to close the call now and, you know, direct all of your attention to those items. Pick and choose whichever topic is, you know, of interest to you. Just try and make progress. Does it sound good for everybody? All right, I'll take silence as a yes. Okay, so let's close the call on this then.