 So for today, a couple of things on the agenda. One, we'll do an action item review to run through some of the topics from the last TSC call, which was about two weeks ago. From there, have a quick discussion around the Garrett migration. Just do a quick follow up there and then move on to the work group updates. Is there anything else that folks would like to see get added to the agenda for today? All right, sounds good. So I think the first thing we'll do is just move into a quick hack fest discussion starting with a readout from the San Francisco hack fest last week and then talk a little bit about the upcoming hack fest. So Brian or any of the other folks that were at the hack fest last week just want to give a quick update to the group on some of the progress and discussions there. Yeah, I think we ran a good two day session. I was really happy to see the level of attendance we had about north of 60 participants and people seemed to stay pretty much the whole time. In terms of agenda, we mixed it up quite a bit but I think try to make sure we had conversations about both fabric and thoughts as like as Bob was talking about the whole room at times about kind of where we take this project from a number of different angles, such as we had a security and risk conversation about what it, we kind of walked through the maturity of software PowerPoint deck example. We talked about demos for Steve-O's and kind of decided that we should probably just do canned videos rather than trying to do some sort of reliability. We talked about the future of fabric and kind of the path from here to fabric 1.0 and, you know, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry. And the architecture working group that's just kind of quite a bit of a time kind of where we had as well. Finally, we had a couple of special guests from the crowd at the Continent Quickly. We had a conversation at the Identity Working Group talking about kind of the attribute system in the certificate authority and membership services system that we have in fabric. So all in all, I felt like there's a good mix of self-directed learning and collaboration along with a chance of a community to talk about some issues. Certainly some things we've learned about for the next time, I think, but all in all, I was pretty happy. I don't know if anyone else wanted to share thoughts or updates to help with others who weren't there would benefit from hearing. All right. You all can hear me, okay. Yep. All right, if no other updates, we can move forward into the upcoming hack fest at this point. Go ahead, Mark. With an afternoon chat, if there was a written kind of conclusion of the event, we've not prepared one formally. A lot of the discussions there led to actions in the different working groups and lists, but there wasn't a formal written kind of summary. There was a page that had an agenda for the hack fest that we could share around. So if you could see what we talked about with you like this conversation, Todd would paste it there. Yeah. Okay. Consider now. So moving forward for the upcoming hack fest, there are two on the calendar. The next one will be August 24th and 25th. That'll be a virtual hack fest like we did in the month of June. So in the upcoming TSC meeting, we'll kick off an agenda doc for that so people can start pulling together various agenda items or topics that they'd like to discuss or accomplish in this. And then we'll get a kickoff scheduled in the morning as well as checkpoints in the evening like we did in the previous hack fest that seemed to work well. And then the work groups and other groups are able to meet in variety of ad hoc meetings throughout the day. Onward from there, the next hack fest is confirmed. It will be in Amsterdam. It will be October 3rd and 4th. ABN Amro will be hosting this in tandem with IBM Netherlands and Holland Fintech as well as the Hyperledger project. So we will get the microsite set up for that in the coming days and get a registration link out to everyone so they have all the details that they need and understand how to register for that. And we will also begin pulling together an agenda doc for that to start iterating on as it gets closer to the event. And again, this is right after the CyBus event in Geneva, so for those that don't live in Europe and are traveling, it should be relatively convenient to also be able to attend this. Any questions on any of the hack fest updates before we move forward? Not a question, just a comment for me that I think we know that the virtual hackathon, the virtual hack fest last time had some limited participation. Yeah, I think there were a bunch of ideas that floated around for a better way to do it and I think they largely revolved around teeing up some specific action items or specific work items or goals for us for that let's you day stretch. Now that we have with Fabric an emerging sense of what's to end between us and really it may be very useful for us to think about what we could do by that point to have work items on that roadmap, you know, develop into issues in the issue tracker, develop into kind of bite-sized tasks that could be used to try to onboard some new developers or find developers who have now climbed a bit of a learning curve further beyond that and actually contribute it into the forward momentum. Just as a useful kind of motivating event I think with that way, so we can get the most out of those two days. Hey, all right, just listening to the hyperledger call there, talk about the cybos. Oh, if you're on mute. Okay, and then with that I think we can move into the maturity of software discussion picking up from two weeks ago. Jeremy or Bill, are the two of you on the line? Hi Todd, this is Jeremy Severide. Just a quick report back. So since we last spoke we presented the risk assessment worksheet-based approach to the requirements working group and got a favorable reception and got agreement to incorporate the approach into the use cases and use case template. And Bill and I as part of that walked through a spreadsheet that he and I are compiling of risks and mitigations database, a start of the database of sorts because these are often important for enterprise development where you need to be able to show you thought through some of the risks and mitigations associated with the deployment. And we also incorporated into that a part of a discussion from the identity work group session. There was a discussion there where they were talking about how to prioritize the feature development for membership services. And as part of that discussion, a bucketing of features for a prioritization came out and so we've begun to incorporate that. And so as next steps we will start to develop that database some more as well as start to update the use case template as well as a couple of the use cases to incorporate the risk assessment methodology that we discussed. Any questions? Yeah, I just want to say we did talk about the deck at the hackathon and many people found it useful as a way to start to walk through what we may want to be thinking about when we go to a one dot early and so I just wanted to thank you for that work. Oh, you're welcome. That's good to hear. We'd be happy to follow up with folks offline if they'd like to talk more as well. Great, thanks. All right, honored from there, Brian. I think picking up the release taxonomy discussion is next on the agenda. Yeah, and I had committed to, I did not, I do what I committed to last week, I apologize, which was integrate December versioning number entered into the release taxonomy. So I want to come back to that next week, but just as an update for folks who are looking at this, we'll try to blend the two of these so that the versioning number format proposed by Tim is we'll work into our alpha data production. So still looking for input on that and comments on the Google Docs, but there's one more iteration for me to do and then hopefully next week we could approve it and watch it. Great, thanks. All right, the next topic is the upcoming TSC election as we move into steady state. We've talked about this the last couple of weeks. Just as a reminder, we will open the nomination phase for that election next Thursday, August 11th. And I'm going to paste into the chat window right now. This is a list of all the contributors. We are currently going through and cleaning up this list and adding names to the emails or emails to names that we had. It's a bit of a manual process. So please first go in and check, make sure your name is on the list if it should be on the list. If it's not on the list, please shoot me an email. And then the second thing is if you see your name in there and it doesn't have the email or your email doesn't have the name, feel free to help us out and just add a comment into the doc with either of the missing information. We'll get that put in there. Any questions on the upcoming election? All right, sounds good. And the last thing from the action item review, a couple of weeks back there was an initial proposal on the Explorer. And I think Chris was working with DTCC on bringing that back to the group for review. I know Chris is out this week, not sure if anyone from DTCC is on that wants to speak to that or if we... Go ahead. Todd, so I made some updates. I'll first go back with Dan and Chris again and we'll bring basically and post this document on the weekly, the updated document. And I think we can discuss this in the next DST meeting. All right, thanks, Bart. That sounds good. Okay. All right, that completes the action item review from the last DST meeting. So the next agenda item... Well, one thing I'm sorry, just added on the Explorer proposal is that one of the things that was done at the hack fat last week was that Chris and Dan from Intel, just for the sake of everyone else on the call, Chris and Dan from Intel, and sorry, Bart, just from DTCC. Three of them sat together and came up with a, at least a path forward for a unified proposal for building on top of this initial contribution with code and common interfaces from both IBM and Intel to be able to talk to both fabric and software. So it seemed like a good thing and too much momentum towards the converge picture for the score as we talked about the past. So I think just because Chris was on vacation this week, we haven't perhaps been more, there will be more to talk about hopefully next week. Sounds good. All right, the next agenda item, there was some discussion on follow-up from the Garrett migration that got pushed to the TSC channel. So just wanted to bring that up on this call. And Brian, do you want to have that discussion? Yeah, there are a couple of outstanding migration questions that follow on from this move. And also, I just wanted to open up for anybody who wanted to be able to kind of express the point of view or note other remaining things to kind of close on this. But with this move, because we moved where the repository is, the core upstream repository, no longer is on GitHub, it's on garret.hyperlitter.org, it has a couple of other ramifications. And so one of those was a conversation that was posted to the TSC list initially in the fabric, and kind of also in the fabric list, which is a discussion as to whether we want to, where we want the Go tools to be able to pull the, basically pull from, which mirror do they want to pull from? They want to use when they're pulling code into the build environment. There was a proposal with two different options. I'm referring here to an email from Chris on July 30th this past Saturday. There's an option one, which was to mirror the fabric repo with the GitHub, which we will do anyways for the sake of making sure that commits from individuals not actually contribute to their GitHub profile to have a present on GitHub as a downstream mirror, but to have the Go tools actually map to that and pull down resources from that. Or do we, the option two, establish a non-Github identity within the Go tools and actually pull directly from garret.hyperlitter.org. And I think we can evolve that over time. We could even just continue to sort that out over the mailing list. It didn't seem like there was a clear overwhelming consensus for one versus two. So maybe we should just continue to work that out on the list, but if people felt like there was a, they had a strong sentiment one way or the other, might be worth talking about that in a call. So any comments on that? So if you're looking forward to hear email clients, it's dealing with the Go import path post-garrot migration. If there aren't any comments, we could just continue to iterate on the list as we follow the race path. There's another issue having to do with the read the docs build process, as noted by Josh Hornton in an issue. So it hasn't quite come up yet to the public list. We'll need to redo how we rebuild, read the docs up directly from Garrett. And we can look at what that takes from the Phoenix Foundation's side. And this is something that's easy for us to manage. So we'll go ahead and do that. If not, we may want to work with the volunteers to get that set up. Or wait until we do this kind of flip around where GitHub is mirroring from Garrett. And then we can have read the docs build, continue to build from GitHub. One way or the other, we won't leave read the docs behind. Are there any other comments that people have had? I mean, the last thing that I will say, which echoes what I said on the list is there's probably more that we could have done on our side. And I say we collectively, mostly the Phoenix Foundation, but also some of the others that have worked on this issue to kind of prepare the development community for what that migration means. I think we wanted to take the opportunity of Rai and Chris being in the same room at the same time during the hack test to make this happen, to follow up on a decision made even before I joined to move to Garrett. It's just probably something we could have communicated more clearly and helped people through things like having to do a fresh checkout, rebate their pull requests, that sort of thing. So I'll be a bit of a man cultist, but I think we're past the worst of that now. And on a really good platform for being able to move even more quickly through a world where we're ingesting contributions from a lot of different places. Any other concerns or thoughts about the move from GitHub to Garrett? So this is Arnaud. I just wanted to point out, I mean, you just talked about pull requests, and I think the big change, you know, for people who are not familiar with Garrett is the big change is you don't do pull requests anymore. And so you don't work off a fork. You work off the clone of the repository directly. And the basic workflow is that when you do a push, it's really going to create some kind of pull request, which in this case is submission for code review. I've actually gone through this now once to do an exercise. And I mean, it does take a little bit of getting used to, but the code review is definitely useful. And as Chris was updating all the documentation to give the information how to work with fabric, using Garrett as opposed to GitHub, we had to do a lot of documentation updates, and Chris did most of it. But several of us participated in the code review, and it's clear that we were able to catch a lot of errors and stuff that before it would have been harder to do. And so there's definitely value in this Garrett code review process. And it might be worth pointing out that Rai actually a few months ago recorded some kind of video. A video available for people to get an introduction to how we've been to Garrett functions. But so people should, you know, if you need help, please ask. There are pointers we can provide on how to get started. There are still some choices that need to be made as to how we use branches and things like that. It's, again, quite different from how it's typically done with GitHub. And as a group, we need to adopt some conventions. And I expect us to figure those out as we move forward. On the sawtooth side, first of all, I appreciated the on-the-fly presentation that Rai did at the Hackfest. I thought that was really informative. We've got a couple key people on our CI team that are on vacation, so we haven't been able to progress the conversation within the sawtooth team. But short of moving that further, our view is that we don't really have a broken process that we need to fix over on sawtooth, and it looks like there's going to be some not insignificant changes that would have to take place for Garrett. So we'll continue to look at that, but there's not any immediate changes on the sawtooth side. It is going to be... There is value in being able to have consistent processes across a project like Hyperledger. There's also value in making a switch like this earlier in the development of MyPipe over others. I think it's appropriate for authors to decide not to be the first to jump across this and to come along later and for us to see other ways to reduce the cost of such a migration or make it easier to follow. I think the TSC should talk about, should there be a single standard for how to do things across the project or is it fine for there to be parts of this project that live on GitHub or not? I'd like to be neutral on that issue, but I have a bias towards consistency across the project. So I'd love to just hear your thoughts on that and other thoughts on that. Yeah, I suppose that's kind of an awkward decision flow at this point since the Garrett decision was kind of, from my perspective, a feta-compley that came through. So we're going to continue to look at it, particularly once our guys get back from vacation. We'll be able to get a better understanding of what that would mean for us, but at the moment it looks like a tax with minimal benefit. But that's not to say that we're unwilling to continue to look at that. Happy to have it be an ongoing conversation. If anyone else wanted to express their thoughts now on that topic, it'd be fine, otherwise we'd just refer this to the future. There are a couple of more things that may be worth pointing out on the Garrett transition. So just to clarify, we will keep the GitHub repo that was existing for Fabric. It's redone-ly now and it's going to be synced with Garrett as we go forward. At the same time, Garrett does not contain all the different comets. There was some email exchange about this. Brian explained quite well the legal reasons as to why we had to squash all the comets as we transitioned to Garrett. But there is going to be also an archive copy of the GitHub repo at the time of the transition so that they will be both in GitHub, the current version, and the version as to the day we transitioned to Garrett available. And in terms of all the social aspect of GitHub that gives people's activity and all this stuff, all this should be reflected moving forward as if we had not transitioned as long as you use the same email address for your Linux foundation ID and your GitHub ID. Exactly. Okay, any other comments overall on the Garrett migration? Okay. All right, sounds good. Finally, we'll move into the workgroup updates. Starting with the requirements workgroup is Oleg on the line. All right, we'll look for an email update from Oleg. Ram in the architecture working group. Hi, yes. So we had a very good couple of sessions at the face to face in San Francisco with the significant turnout. So the first session was on documenting the first workgroup item around the consensus layer as well as the smart contract layer and the interface between them. We've made significant progress that we didn't quite get to the full outline that we wanted to. And so as part of the ongoing work, we're going to have a separate track to focus on and complete the documentation of the first topic. And we've decided on our regular meetings that we will continue. So that's the focus of the second session that we had in the face to face. And we're going to continue on with it in our regular meetings and on email hopefully. That is the focus on security and privacy requirements and the security functions. The main topic that came up in the face to face was bootstrap requirements and identity around that. So for those interested, please join the architecture workgroup mailer and our calls on Wednesday. Any questions? Thanks. All right. Thanks, Ram. All right. Moving forward to Dave and the white paperwork group. Hi, yes. So we met again yesterday and we reviewed some of the final updates that we wanted to get out there for our next publication and we were able to complete that. So I'm happy to report. If you look on the Wiki, if you go to the white paper working group Wiki page, you'll see that we have now published draft version 2.0. So the last draft we published was I think June 20 something towards the end of June. So quite a bit of edits in there. We believe that we've addressed all of the comments and feedback that we've received in this version. So if you've been kind of holding off waiting to see the next version before you take another read and submit new feedback, well, now it's there. So we haven't had any new feedback in about three weeks. So I'm hoping now that we've got this new version out there that we'll get more people reviewing it and to give us some feedback. Hi, David. Can you post a link? Probably best on the mailing list and then it appears as an inbox item. But I must admit, I miss that there's a new thing to review. If you post a link, then I'll add it to me to do this to look at it. Sure. I will post that into the chat room here. Okay. And also I think that they're typically those links are typically included in the minutes that Todd sends out after our meetings as well. But I'll go ahead and do that right now. Thanks. I missed it. Sure. No problem. Great. Thanks, Dave. Any other questions or comments for Dave? All right. Thanks Dave. Is Christopher Allen on to do update from the identity work group? I think we'll look for that via email as well. In terms of the CI work group, I know Chris Ferris is out. Brian, I don't know if there's anything you wanted to add related to that on the fly. If not, we'll look for that from Chris next week. No, I don't. Okay. All right. And that brings us to the end of a relatively short agenda for today. Are there any other topics that people would like to discuss at this point? Otherwise, we're happy to give folks some time back today. No further agenda items. So with that, thank you everyone for your time. And happy to give you about an hour back for the day. We'll get some minutes out shortly here. Thanks, everyone. Thanks, guys. Thanks. Bye. Bye. Thank you.