 Take it away. All right. Hello, everyone. Welcome to the TSC call. As a reminder, this is an open call. You're supposed to have read the anti-trust policy notice, which is displayed in front of you right now, as well as the code of conduct that we display that to. And which essentially you need to be familiar with. And basically, don't act like a jerk. Try to behave like a decent human being. And you will be welcome on the call. So with that being said, we wanted to stop the call with a couple of announcements. The first one is with regard to the maintainer submit, which will take place next week in Minneapolis. Then Middleton has been leading the charge on setting that up and making it happen. He is traveling today. But he gave me a short update saying that we basically complete the maximum occupancy. There is an agenda that has a collection of proposed topics, which seems pretty full as well. We haven't decided exactly how we're going to sort out all the proposals. And so I think we'll have to sort that out. Either Dan will send an email beforehand, or I suspect we'll run this slightly like a non-conference type of meeting. When we are there at the beginning, we'll decide who really wants to work on what within the agenda. That's just my take on it. We'll have to see. But so registrations are closed. I don't think you could do it. But even if you did now, be aware that there is just no room left. You have limited capacity. And so we just can't accommodate any more people. Bootcamp, Silona, are you there? Want to say something? Any updates? Yes, we're coming up on it here pretty soon. And we're working a lot towards a registration. We just made it free last week, because there were evidently some problems with payments going through. So we're hoping that that solves some of our registration issues, because we had about 3,000 people who had seen the original email, about 1,200 of them clicked through, but only 10 of them bought tickets. So we think that there was some problems with the processing. And so we're fixing that right now so that those people can all get signed up. All right. Thank you. So now I wanted to echo the email Sila sent to the mailing list a couple of days ago. We're going to a thorough relaunch. So Sila, since you're here, why don't you just take it and tell us all what you want us to know and do? Oh, thanks. Thanks a lot. So I just wanted to flag it on this call just to give people a bump, if they do have any feedback to get that to me. I'm thinking of probably, I think the latest I could send it off. I'm trying to get it out on the first day of the maintenance summit, because that's when there's a slot. So I might send it off tomorrow, or I could maybe wait for Monday if there's any feedback. But yeah, I give a bit more detail in the covering email there, but basically I've tried to do a bit of branding, which is not exactly entirely in my wheelhouse. And I've come up with this boring blockchain concept. And then there's a whole massive section on features and details that just doesn't exist in a semi-coherent way anywhere else. We've also done a load of work on docs. So the links off there are a lot of those docs are new. So yeah, mainly, does anyone have any feedback about the bullet points there? How Burrow is being betrayed? Whether people like it, because the issue we have is that people have no idea why you would choose Burrow or what our general vibe is. And it's an effort to do that. So feedback on that. And if anyone has any time, I know people are busy, but if you find following links or there's anything broken, then now is a good time for me to fix that. So yeah, that's all. All right, thank you. So moving on, unless there's any questions or comments. Moving on, I wanted to echo also the call for participation for the Hyperledger Global Forum was extended by one week, but it's closing tomorrow. So if you still have some ideas that you would like to submit, now is the time to do so. So that's all there is to say about this. We have two quarterly reports that I do, but that are not being submitted as far as I could tell. Just a few minutes ago, I looked. So this is architecture working group and the fabric project. So please do submit those as soon as possible. And if there are any questions or point of discussion, we can take that next week. I do have a question. And it may just be because I'm not caffeinated yet, but it used to be in the Wiki under the TSC, you'd see project reports, project updates, and I don't see those anymore. OK, so that's maybe that would have been worth an announcement of some kind, but so that's thanks for prompting me. I was actually just looking at that. So what happened with the Wiki is we may have lost some people in the way there because essentially, actually Chris pointed out to me last week, I think, how come we don't have a Wiki space for the TSC? And I said, yeah, I don't know. I asked Ray, he's like, well, this is just an oversight. They may create one. And then we started saying, OK, but what do we do with all the pages that exist? And Ray was thinking of moving all the pages, but then it brings all the links that may exist from the outside world to the pages, such as if you just done an email with a pointer to one of the pages, it breaks the link. And I'm not an old-fashioned web guy. I was taught that cool your eyes don't change if there is we see. And so I tried to live by that. So we came up with the solution to copy all the pages in the new space and put a pointer from the old pages to the new one. As a result of that, the navigation bar that you see on the left, when you look at the TSC page, does not include the project updates. But I was just looking at a way to get that back in. Just, I mean, I don't think we're going to move the pages. I'm not sure there's a point to do that when it comes to the project and working group updates. They can stay where they are. They are in each respective space. But I do want to make it easy to access those from the TSC space. So I ran out of time before the call, but otherwise I would have created some pages to make it easy to access those pages. So long story short, now it means that if you want to access those, you have to go back up to the other space or up in the hierarchy of the wiki to the top and go back down in the project section or the working group section to find the TSC update sections. Thank you for the clear and concise explanation. It's also a little bit of a broken aspect with one of the modules. And it is supposed to put those links in for them automatically. And for some reason it wasn't. And so that was one of the things that kind of frustrated Rai and I as we were trying to figure out why the plugin wasn't actually functioning correctly and automatically putting those links in when he moved it from one place to the next. It doesn't work when you copy, but when you move things, it should work. And it wasn't, we still don't know why it wasn't working correctly because I use it all the time. Yeah, and I want to give Rai some credit there. He's been working hard in the back trying to get all these crap sorted out. And I've worked with him and pointed out, oh, this is broken. I can't do this and all. And he's been going after one fire and others. So I think we're almost there. It's really weird because we do this in console all the time. And for some reason, this one's breaking a lot more than any of the others have. And I don't understand why. I literally move around spaces all the time and you'll never notice. But this one evidently decides to break in a bunch of different ways to which Rai, which is leaving Rai and I a little bit perplexed. So sorry about that. Technical difficulties, not Rai, more confluence doing what the hell. So yeah. If you go to the main technical steering committee page and you look at the child pages, you see a lot of child pages, but they're not evident on the front page itself mainly because the lack of a macro or something that exposes them to the front page. Yeah. They don't live in that space. So that's the deal, right? So you're right. There's a macro that's missing. It's the child pages macro. I just didn't have time to get it done before this meeting. It's no problem. I'm just- I'm just- The macro will be there and it'll work. So. All right. It's all right. No need to be too sensitive, right? I mean, I don't think they meant it as criticism as much more like just information. So I mean, obviously we're not completely done with this. So bear with us and hopefully we'll get there soon. All right. So let's move on. We have a whole bunch of issues that have been open. I added a bunch more based on Brian's email, which from the responses that were sent to the list seemed pretty positive. And so I created a couple more. I mean, actually there were like four different or five different points. One fell within the existing voter selection item, but the others were new. So I created those and because they seem to be non-controversial, I was hoping we could maybe close those quickly. Of course, you may prove me wrong there, but let's give it a shot. So I listed a whole bunch of the agenda starting with things that I thought might not be controversial and we could close quickly and going to the harder ones and we'll see how far we can go. So maybe before I get into this, I wanted to ask, is there anything else that's not on the agenda that anybody wants to bring up today? Because this, I will run this all the way to the end, how much the time we have. Now is your chance if you want to insert anything. Okay, hearing none, let's get started. So, yes? A question on these proposals, I guess. How many of these require governing board approval after we approve them? So as far as I know, the only one that really requires board approval list to do with the size. And the quorum, I would assume, right? Since that's in the charter today? No, the charter doesn't say anything. That's the problem, actually. The charter says something about the governing board, right? So I would assume we'd want to put that in for the PSC as well. Well, we could ask them to insert that, but at this point, they have wording about the quorum for the board, but not for the technical strength committee. So I think we can make our own decision, and then, you know, we can all take another look and make sure that, you know, if anything needs to be endorsed by the board, we'll bring it up to the board. How about that? Sounds good. All right. So with that being said, so the first one to do with the actual election process itself, so Brian pointed out that, you know, so it was, I think, you know, it was a bit difficult and there were some, we had to have a relaunch and there were discussions about the timeframe that was given and located to different steps within the process. And so essentially, Brian suggested that we make sure that this is defined properly before the election and approved by the TSC. So this merely says we shall approve, you know, the TSC should, sorry, approve the process put before us by the staff on an annual basis. I would have to say I hesitated on the last piece where it needs to be done on an annual basis or not. I'm not completely clear, but... I want to ask a really quick question or no. Is it your expectation that we're going to do roll call votes for each of these? It's my expectation that that's what we want to do, but are you just going to do a voice vote? I hope we can do a voice vote. Excellent, let's do that. By the way, I won't try the easy way if possible, but before we get to vote, I wanted to ask you if there's any comments or questions. Yes, yes, I don't know. The data collection should be an ongoing process. We shouldn't be waiting till the end to scramble and collect the data because most of the contributors, by the end of the eighth or the 10th month, 80% of them will be known because it's one year of, you know, one year prior that the contributions are eligible. So I think that we have to have a process by which we set up the data collection regularly and also the get-or-vote campaign has to be much more rigorous because otherwise... Okay, so let's not go there. No, I hear you and I think these are valid points, but I don't think, you know, the proposal before us is really tied to any of this because the proposal is really just to say, we need to have a defined process before us by the staff and we will formally approve it. Okay, so what you're saying is the process should include these things. You just talked about, which, you know, is or... Because of the second point, it does talk about the data collection in September. Yeah, but so we are on the first one. Be with me. All right. Election process approval. So any other questions or comments on that? Do we want to add a timeframe? So, like, they need to come before the TSC a month before the proposed start of the election versus here's our thing, we're starting tomorrow. We could do that, I suppose. I like that one. Yeah, that's a good idea, Mark. Okay, so we want to add... I agree. I agree, but I can just, I tell you personally, this is gonna be, if not like the first order of business I come to the TSC, after things settle down, it's gonna be like the second or third because this is really, I have my priority to not go through this again, so don't worry. Yeah, but we can add no letter than a month prior to the start of the election process. How about six months? You will have help. You will have help according to the ones coming up, the proposals coming up. Yeah, but so do we agree on this? Does anybody have a problem with adding a timeframe? Like Mark said, did you say a month before? Yeah, I mean, I'm very flexible on the amount of time, but I figured a month or so would give. I know if there's a discussion, so go through and do it. I want six, six months. You can deliver early, right? No, no, I want the TSC to be invested in the election process. And I understand the six months out may sound like it's a really long time, but to all the points that Dipham was raising, these aren't a lot of issues that we can just solve in two weeks, right? And if we only do it for a month, nothing's gonna happen, right? So I propose six, go with one. Well, the problem with six is if a month before the election, we find that there's something wrong with the process, then technically we'd have to wait six months before we could hold the vote again. I don't know, I mean, if it's six months before... It sounds over these guys. Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. If it's six months before... If it's six months before, doesn't it give you more time to deal with the problems rather than a month before? Depends on the wording, that's all. I'm fine with whatever. I suggest to, after an annual basis, we say no later than three months prior to the election process. Sure, and then they can come in much earlier and get bigger bonuses for achieving their goals early. Should I edit this and you reload? I feel like going back to the six months before we can hold the elections, three months before we hold an election, might need too much as well. But I guess that's the concern, right? I mean, I understand that, like I've done this process before, so I know what it is, right? And basically you could see probably me reaching out to people all year around saying, like, hey, you got two email addresses, which one do you want? Sort of thinking about it, A, I see you have a, like, no reply, what do you want? So I just feel like if we put something longer than a month, that we're asking for trouble in the future. Let's make sure we all agree on what we're talking about. We're talking about the approval of the process. Exactly, the approval of the process. No less than a month before the process starts. Yes. I prefer leaving it open that way for staff discretion, and then I think we should move for vote so we can get through as much of this list as we can. So you're saying we leave it the way it is? I think a month, right, Nesa? Yeah, a month is fine. And then we leave, past the month, we leave it open for staff discretion. I like the attitude of the staff in terms of trying to approve it early and work on it all the way along. And I think that the staff is motivated to do that without a delay. I think that the staff is motivated to do that without us dictating it in the resolution. Yeah, I'm not dating this to add no later than one month prior to the election. I mean, if you want to solve the entire problem, then we should just come up with one process that's going to be used from year on out. Yeah, I'm assuming that once we, you know, get the process defined and done, it might need a tweak every now and then, but it should be good to go every year. You didn't get it? What's going on? I think they didn't like it. Try again, please. I see it. Oh, there it is. No later than one month. Okay. I make a motion to approve this. I second that motion. Thank you. So anybody disagrees? Anybody abstains? I assume everybody else agrees. So this is agreed. Approved. Thank you. This is supposed to be an easy one, guys. I'm a bit worried about the time we spend on this, but let's keep on going. It's all right. So the next one is the actual timing of the election. So, and, you know, there are furthers. They are there. The process will specify exactly the different steps and how much time is allocated for each phase of the election process, you know, such as nomination, the actual vote itself and all that good stuff. What this is about is the general timeframe of the election. As you all know, we have had the election happen in August and it has been pointed out this is actually a pretty bad time of the year to try to get everybody's attention because of all the vacation happening in many parts of the world. And so the general idea was, well, let's push it either to September or to October. And in fact, because I suspect, you know, the process itself will take quite a bit of time. I decided to take from Brian's suggestions. The, the, the later, the latter, which is to put the election really in October and leave September to do all the final finalization of the preparation such as ensuring we have the right list of voters and whatnot. So that's what this proposal is basically about. It's basically saying, let's move the election from August to October. That's really the key point. So any comments? No, I think it's very sensible. To finalize the data collection. To finalize the data collection. What are you saying finalize the data collection? What instead of doing the data collection in September, they should be hopefully, you know, it might be easier to do it on an ongoing basis. Yeah, I mean, but if you really want to do some worse meeting, we can do that. That's fine. If somebody just wants to make the edit. I will do it. No. Let me do this. I will change the word do to finalize. Update. Try to reload now. Should be. Okay. Are we good with that proposal? So. We have to do the file. Yeah, anybody wants to move. I make a motion. I make a motion to accept this. A second. Thank you. So anybody disagrees. Objects silence. Very good. Anybody wants to abstain silence. Very good. So I take it. And we all agree. It is there for. Approved. Okay, we're making some progress. Let's keep on going and see how far we can do that. So next. He's the nomination. That was a very simple point. And Brian, you know, it was noted that so until in. The election process allows anybody to nominate either themselves or somebody else. What happened is, and you, you could argue, this is just because it was not handled properly, but the way the election went on is. There was no time for people to actually accept their nomination when they were nominated by somebody else. And we ended up with this situation where people were on the list of candidates when they didn't want to be on it. And so they were, you know, sending email to rise saying, please take me off. And so it created a bit of. Unstable situation, let's just say. And so the idea is to change this. There are actually two really ways to do this. Either we just say. Oh, we have to have some phase where people have to accept when they are nominated by somebody else. Or we just say, no, people nominate themselves period. You cannot nominate somebody else. So I think the latter, which was from Brian's proposal. But. I could imagine going the other way. I don't know if it matters to. I think self-nomination. Sorry, go ahead. I was saying self-nomination. I guess the thing with self-nominations and Tracy, feel free to help me out here. If you agree. Is it can be a. Cultural gender kind of thing. Some people aren't comfortable self-nominating. Oh, good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Good point. Also, if you make the change. Changes that you've suggested earlier, these problems that cropped up in this year's election. May not be there because you're giving more time. In the beginning. To do all this. Fapping around. To get the. Nomination list. Set. So this may not even be a problem. I don't know. I don't know. I mean, I cannot move anything, but I suggest. That this. Be excised from this list. Not even discussed. It was a problem this year. So I can foresee in the future, it would be a problem. So I would argue against that. Well, I'm saying that you've changing the process. To add more. Time in the beginning. To add more time in the future. So if you're doing that, then this problem that happened this year. You may be fixing a problem that doesn't exist. No, but. In the problem. People didn't. In previous years, it's been an email and people would. If I nominated you, you would either decline it or accept it through the email. This year there was no email. Everything just got put. You know, on a web page in a form you filled out. So you're going to be able to. You know, on a web page in a form you filled out. So you didn't even know who was running till you actually saw the ballot. Yeah, Mark is touching on an important point. That's part of the proposal that I didn't highlight, which is, you know, this year it was done through a form. And you, that the result was only posted on the wiki. And the proposal says no, the nomination should be done by sending an email to the list. So we could do, if people feel like there may be a need for the ability to nominate someone else. Then one way to solve the situation we had would be to say, the initial shall be nomination shall be posted to the TSE list and get confirmed in case of nomination by a third party. Something along those lines. I like that option. I'm also not very particular whether we're approving some of these things now versus when we approve them, when we do the annual process approval. It seems like a lot of these things are things we can change our mind on. So I prefer to move through some of these a lot faster than we are. A lot of what we need to change our mind. For say, I mean, can we just agree what we want to agree to here and go with it? Yeah, I'm just saying we seem to be picking every detail apart on the TSE list. And they're taking, you know, two or three. Yes, I don't know if anybody could disagree with this, but you can see how much time it takes. People care about every single little detail. Every time something gets discussed, it takes a lot of time to close the issue. So as far as I'm concerned, I'd rather finish it now and we don't have to reopen it. We don't have any problems if we say nominations shall be posted to the TSE list and confirmed by the person nominated. I think that's great. If we just do that for the time. That seems to make everybody happy. And if you don't confirm, then you're just not included. So because we did have some, some people well known in the hyperledger community this year who were nominated and didn't want to run. But they didn't know they were nominated until they saw their ballot. Yep. That's right. Okay. I updated the proposal. I moved to vote on this resolution. Second. I second that motion. Everybody is eager to get through this. Good. All right. Anybody objects. Anybody wants to abstain hearing none. I think we can declare it approved. Thank you. I like that. I'm not the only one getting impatient. Just hurry up. All right. The next one should be simple. It basically just says, Hey, you know, we could have some volunteer observers to the election process. They could help out the. The staff. And they could monitor and be, you know, like. You know, you know, there's one condition is that you're not running. Obviously. Is that controversial in any way? Do we have to be, I'm sorry. I don't want to. But do we have to be concerned about. Rankings being released. By these volunteers. So you bring up an interesting point, Tracy. And this was one. The, the condorsate interface does not. Give us. A way to. Give kind of a read only view. So this was a point that. You know, because you basically, if you have the condorsate interface, you have. Complete control. Or you have none. Or you have access to the complete results or you have none. This would not include. Access to the actual. Condors it. You know, I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Using the CVS thing. So I think the answer is no. I know when I had access in the past, I could see like the rankings and I could see kind of. How far off somebody was from. And I just, I don't want that to be released. So I feel like there's, you know, some sort of privacy here that we should consider. Right. So what I'm saying is. The election observers. I don't understand this because if you're volunteering to be an election observer, you're obviously an upstanding member of the community. Same as the HR staff who see the elections. So why are we bringing in this point? Maybe we should just say that, you know, they, they will not. Release those. Those results. And, you know, we have the whole purpose of observers is. So that there is someone else. You know, having the same view. And yeah, I think that. If you think that that will cause a privacy breach. Just because you pick the observers randomly. Then you should only trust the members who will. You know, do this properly. I think this should be addressed in the, in the request for privacy and, you know, and. I committed to keep it that way. And that's it. I mean, as much we can do. I think Tracy's point is exactly that. That, you know, there's no punitive action we can really take if someone does violate privacy. I mean, I think most of those things are actually board decisions. Like the charter, if you read it is very ambiguous about this stuff. And it's possible that you could have a lot of different interpretations of the text. We would need to go into like constitutional lawyer mode. To figure some of this stuff out. All these guys. I feel like a lot of those issues we are tackling when it comes to the process. You know, should have been tackled. By the governing board. But they are not. So we could try to get the board to take all. On all of this. But I fear it would, it's, you know, it's going to take even more time. And so I was trying to find a way. Quick. You know, a quick way out of this. By saying, okay, let's just agree. And it's maybe I'm wrong because it seems like we can. We can run. Because even on this one, I have to be. We want nobody puts the purpose for this. But I assume that you want to have some volunteer election observers either because you wanted people to help out. Or because you wanted some extra pair of eyes. Because you don't trust something else is going on. But then the counterpoint is we don't trust those people to do the job they're supposed to do. So we're adding people to add additional trust. But then we're saying we don't want to vote for it because we don't trust them. All right. So. I think this is a good point. It raises some value concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality. I suggest we move on. Leave it aside. We don't have to decide that now. And we can bounce it to the board and say, Hey, we have these suggestions about being observers, but it raised some issues. We didn't know how to tackle. So. And, you know, if it doesn't get solved, then there is no observer. So I think this is a good point. It raises some value concerns regarding privacy and confidentiality. But if it doesn't get solved, then there is no observers at the end of the world. We have lived with that. So. Sounds good. I think one of the reasons for this, just, just for some clarification. Is in the past, the TSC chair has been involved. In. Working with a hyper ledger staff. And if the TSC chair is running for election again. Then there's an inherent conflict of interest there. So. So. Not that that's been violated at all, but. Just to make sure things are, you know, the observers would potentially help in some of the wording. You know, they'd see the wording of stuff before it goes out and could suggest changes, things like that. So actually Mark, just to clarify. The TSC chair was never involved in any previous elections. So. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. Yeah. So there was some confusion about the. The inclusivity, the language of the announcement. And that is. We requested input from the DCI working group. And that was where that came in. So maybe, maybe we just need to. Make sure that they should not involve the chair or anyone else who is actually running. In the direction, I guess. Let's encourage comments on the, in the document and that page and move on for today. Okay. Let's move on. Then there's a question about the quorum. So we've talked about this before and especially if we are ever to increase the size. Of the TSC, there is a question about, well, what should be the quorum? What happens if somebody is not participating anymore, not attending the meetings? And we had some suggestions made. And then Dan actually realized that there is some wording on the charter. Regarding quorum for the board, but not for the TSC. So the suggestion is simply to adopt this exact same wording that exists for the board. For the TSC. There are many ways we could address this issue, but I'm happy to just adopt the governing board, the quorum definition and just use the same. And the key point is basically it guarantees that we're not getting stalled by the fact that somebody may just drop off and not bother to call. And so. But it's, it's not very, they're severe. The consequences basically is you're not counted after three meetings or two meetings you miss. And then, you know, you get back on as soon as you get back. So. So this rule seems to work quite well in places like the W3C in part because it's not enforced very aggressively, meaning people are sensitive to not try to push a vote through when quorum is missing someone who might be affected by that vote. So I like the idea that this is the same wording that we get off of the board of directors because it gives us some consistency and something that we can expect. And I would also expect that as a TSC perspective to win, maybe there's a conference that involves all the Ethereum folks and the, maybe the EVM representatives are gone for two weeks. We wouldn't plan on trying to push something through that might really significantly affect the projects that were related to that the third week because then if someone had connectivity problems, you know, we would have quorum, even though they're not their projects might not be represented. Yes, I agree completely with this. And I would like to think that the chairs could handle the situations the way anyone would expect or hope for. And if I'm not aware, please let me know. I'm happy to accommodate to make it right. So. All right. So unless there's any more comments, let's agree. Let's get a motion for this, please. Steve, we're going to get it approved. So this wording now matches what the board has, right? Yes, I took exactly a copy pasted and replaced the governing board by TSC. Okay. Then I make a motion to approve it. Second. Anybody wants to second it? I did. Thank you. Sorry, I didn't hear, but. So anybody disagrees objects to the proposal. Anybody wants to be marked as abstaining? Hearing none. I declare it approved. Thank you. Okay. Let's move on. The next one is this notion of co-chair or vice chair. So we have at this situation. The beginning of the year when Dan was the chair and he took a leave of absence for three months, he was absent. And then we had various people. And we had a lot of people. Apparently from Intel, from a spot replacing him on an ongoing basis on and off one person or another. And it was pointed out that that's not ideal. And instead of relying on whoever happens to be there. And we could, I simply choose a vice chair. Who would supplement the chair when the chair is not available. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I think it's a good idea. I totally support this idea because, you know, it stresses me out now when I say I travel a lot and I have to keep paying attention. Doesn't that conflict with my TSC call? And so it would give me a little bit of relief. You know, peace of mind to think it's okay. You know, somebody else might. The vice chair could do it. And then the next question is if we agree to. How do we select it? So there are many ways we could do it. We could. Somebody suggested I, the chair, could those. Could name somebody. Either as part of the election or afterwards, you could have a second election to elect the vice chair. Or my suggestion was, let's just take the second one on the results of the chair's election. And it may not feel like ideal, but I think it's a quick and simple way to get the answer. So that's the proposal would be for you. Any comments? I think the vice chair has a good idea. I think it's very reasonable. I know this is Angela. So what happens if the two coaches are there, completely different views on, on how the TSC should be guided. Yeah. And the chair doesn't miss many meetings. Yeah. Why doesn't the, the, the chair, the side out, give me some advice. I mean, the chair can just name it. And then we are good to go. Wait. Consistency in the direction where this TSC will be driven. I mean, suppose that this, this coach is adversarial and the time that he gets the lead, and the completely opposite direction where the chair wants to go. So what do we do? Well, I would like to take that. The chair doesn't really do anything. The chair organizes mostly. Yeah. I don't think we, I don't think, I mean, you know, especially given that we have an odd number of members, you know, it's, I have a vote like everybody else, but you know, I will try not, I would like to think that we don't really have this kind of so controversial situation where that really comes to matter. But maybe I'm naive. I don't know. I kind of like adding to rely on the election because it means it's more democratic, you know, the members have selected people. We take that. I agree. I like his, I like his suggestion that if you're running for chair, you, you can ask another TSC member to be the co-chair and run with you. Um, I just, I think it shouldn't just default. You know, if there's only two people running it defaults to the loser. So I do want to point out that the proposal, even though the issue was raised as coach chair, the proposal is to have a vice chair, which clearly says the vice chair only comes into play when the chair is not available, which means, you know, in the case where both are present and they disagreed, the vice chair has no role, right? Because it's just like another member. And so if really we were in that situation where it becomes critical, I, you know, I imagine as chair, I would make sure to be on that call no matter what, but it's still the call. But I think it's all a bit, you know, it's a bit old far-fetched honestly. Hey, this is Mike. Just one thing to point out is if the chair is being, if the chair appoints the vice chair, then it's not substantially different than what Dan was doing last year with asking us to cover for him. So you might want to have some independence between the two. Yeah. I prefer the second one in the election. Mike Arnault proposes here. The folks who are running from the TSB all have the project's best interests as heart, or otherwise they wouldn't be giving up the time that they're giving up to do it. So I don't think there's a significant risk that someone would ram through opposing views without it being reversible in one way or another. And I also think that if there's the potential to be vice chair, it might motivate more of us to put their hat in the ring, but I don't think there's a significant risk that someone is going to vote vice chair, maybe with less of the hope of being chair between vice chair. And that was actually one of my concerns was if, and we'll vote on size later, but right now there's 11. So if four of us decide to run, you know, figuring, well, I might not become chair, but I'll, I could become vice chair then. And I'm not sure how the voting system actually calculates and you know, you could conceivably win with maybe three first place votes. Actually condor set, you could probably win with no first place votes, but yeah. So what I propose is that I'm going to set up an election and I'll set up a couple of trial elections with like unnamed people, right? And I will give you guys the TSC like a complete tour of the process and you can see everything from end to end as I see it. And then we can talk about how to move forward, but the election could be interesting exactly as Hart points out, you could win by not even having any first place votes. Okay. The other, the other solution is just to have two, two elections. You know, I think at the level of the TSC, there's pretty simple processes. And I don't think it's a lot of work for right, but I had suggested that Brian said, let's keep it simple. Let's do only one election. But it would address the issues that I think make sense to me is like people might want to just be the vice chair, but not share because it's a bigger commitment. So or no, what exactly are, if we were to vote today, what are we voting on? I get the fact of, I think most people seem to be in agreement about a co-chair. And there was a proposal for how to do that here. So that could have been an easy vote. But now I've probably heard three or four other proposals for how to determine the co-chair. Yeah. So I'm trying to understand if there's one that could we could all agree on. Do you have a preference, Gary? I mean, my personal, I would say we should have a co-chair and we should just take the first two results. Okay. I thought it was not a co-chair, but a vice chair. Sorry, vice chair. You're right. So it's the proposal. You're supporting, moving the proposal. Yeah, because the proposal's written there and it seems fine to me. So I propose that. That's good. It is simple. That's me. Simple. I mean, I'm also fine with that. I mean, I was just more for the discussion. I mean, I don't have anything against this given that we can also see how it goes and then we can revert to the decision. If we think it is not making, it doesn't make too much sense. So I can vote for it as well. I move we vote on the proposal highlighted on the screen as written. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Anybody objects to it? Was that yes, Mark? No, I just can't ask a question now that we're voting. You can apply. You have a question by your vote. Go ahead. Ask your question. No, I'm all in favor of a vice chair. Is this effective immediately? So if we vote as this is proposed, that makes it. Let's get through this first, please. Okay. Anybody objects? Hearing none. Anybody wants to abstain? Okay. So I assume everybody else then approves. This is approved. And so we can get to Mark's question now is does that take effect now? I would, I would certainly hope so. But I don't like we have to make another decision for this. I don't know if Dan does, that's all. Right. He can't vote him vice chair without his approval. We have quorum. We just, no, just, we said you can't nominate, right? We'll take with Dan. We can get back to you on this. I don't think anybody would object to having done it. I don't think anybody would object to having done it. I don't think anybody would object to having done it. I don't think anybody would object to having done it. I don't think anybody would object to having done as vice chair. I mean, you know, as it was pointed out, you know, a lot of this is more like, you're volunteering to do more work, but not, but he was, he was, you know, he ran to be chair. So I think he would be willing to be vice chair. At least he hasn't indicated to me that he would not. So I'm, I'm pretty confident they will step up. They will step up. Only if he promises not to take out of three months off. All right. So. Oh, should we only have three minutes left, but, uh, the next one is the TSC size, which is a harder one. And that's why it was left last, but I was hoping we'd have a bit more time to discuss it. Um, can we do that? So, so my, my only concern about this. And I, you know, I want to point out that I, I never told anyone that Dan was the other person running for TSC chair, right? Because I felt that it wasn't good to like, if you don't win the election, don't mention it. Now, if we add these four people, everyone's going to know, you know, who made the cut and who didn't make the original cut. It's my only objection to picking the next four. I think that's the way that we have to do this. But people are going to know that, you know, those four people did not get enough votes originally. Right. So that's, that's my only objection. Okay. So we could ask. It's an interesting point though, right? Because that also means that they didn't get to go down the TSC chair and vice chair as the case may be. Right. So, you know, doing it now after the election is, is a tough one. Okay. So we can separate those two things because in fact, there's a, you know, Chris brought that up before the election, you know, he said, Hey, we have more, many more prizes than we started with the board has been increased. Maybe we should increase our, the size of the TSC as well to have, you know, more representation from the project. And then we had the election and we had a result where they were lost IBMers. And then some people felt this is not right. So I thought, okay, we can, you know, it really seemed to be in favor of increasing the number of seats when Chris brought it up first. So I thought, let's do that now. And let's just add the next four. And that way hopefully it will increase the representation. And then, you know, we'll solve all of this at once. Obviously it has created a bigger controversy than I expected. They are to be fair pros and cons. We can separate the two aspects that are on the proposal on the screen there. I mean, we could discuss whether we agree to extend the board, the TSC to 15 seats. And 15, you might argue, you know, why 15, why not 17 or whatever. I tried to pick a number that would increase what we are without getting out of control. So it's somewhat arbitrary, but not completely. And then we can discuss whether, you know, if we were to agree to increase in 15, whether we make that effective now or not, we could say, no, this will apply for next year, not before. So we're out of time. I'm going to leave it at this for now. I take that as input moving forward. I recommend people or encourage people to participate in discussion that's happening on the wiki. So that will definitely help, you know, it helps bring this kind of issue before so that we have a proposal that's more likely to pass quickly on the call. And if that's possible, this one will definitely require board approval because it will require a charter change. That's correct. That's one point. Quickly. Yes. Yeah. No, but I mean, so the approval, that's why it said pending board approval, right? So it would be contingent to approval by the board. Right. But it might make sense to just propose we change the number and it happens in the next election cycle. Because by the time it gets discussed here, discussed by the board. It'll be next calendar year at least. That might be indeed. Anyway. We are over time. So I apologize. I want to thank everybody for joining us today. And thank you for helping us get through some of these issues. At least we'll be able to close them and move forward. Thank you all talk to you next week. Thanks. Thanks. Thanks. Bye.