 Since she isn't on then we don't have a vote so then we can actually progress if we want Recording is started Thanks, right. All right, let's go ahead and get started Welcome everyone to another edition of the TSC You'll all have a few moments to read the antitrust policy notice here And as always we want to mention that everyone is welcome in the TSC Meeting if you have any thoughts or opinions, please feel free to just sort of shout those out during this meeting We have a relatively light topic today. You should have all seen that on the TSC agenda that was sent out We have a few announcements a couple quarterly report outs a couple discussion items and One topic that is not on here that we wanted to discuss is just how we continue to manage The project updates moving forward in a more efficient fashion in particular as we Have more working groups and more projects coming into the hyper ledger umbrella So with that I will have hand it off to Salona and Tracy for any announcements Hi, so the main one is Recruiting for internships. We're still looking for mentors. We're gonna open it up for the actual interns Next month, but for right now, we're looking for the internships all that set up on the wiki and Things can be proposed through that. We're also going to be automating a little bit more of that on the wiki going forward as well The quilt architecture reboot process officially got started yesterday where all the different calendar times have now been reserved on the calendar so everyone can go and sign up for those that are interested and Super sad Tracy's last day is the 12th, but she's still going to be a lab steward and I'm still going to be recruiting her to be on the Technical ambassadors so Yes, thank you Tracy Yeah, thank you Tracy. Oh, yeah one a personally extend. Thank you. You've done a great job representing the community And I know that you've been a huge help In many of the projects so really appreciate your contributions over the past year or so Thanks. Oh Okay, perfect So because we want to make sure we get through the project updates We are going to be moving these towards the top of the agenda For for this week's meeting and also from here on out. So is there anyone from the hyper ledger fabric? team that would like to Briefly talk through the hyper ledger project fabric project update So we haven't coordinated this but I guess I could do it if there's nobody else Yeah, that would be great. We'd appreciate that. I don't know All right, so Chris filled out the report I don't know if he had planned to be on the call to give the report and that's what I mean by we have not Add any coordination, but I think you know overall It's pretty straightforward. There is no major issue. I think he really knows We had the first major release in terms of long-term support. It's the first long-term support release It was Scheduled for the end of December because of the holidays We actually had a candidate released before the holidays, but then we kind of froze there It's only early January that we actually released one dot four But more or less we are still we are still on schedule with regard to our quarterly release schedule And so the work has now for you know shifted towards Now we have two versions. We're working on one for one Which will be the patch release for one four and two zero which has a bunch of new features in terms of, you know The overall Uptake and and the community nothing really has changed Fabric still remains very popular The contributors are pretty much stable. We have a pretty steady stream of contribution and There are some major new features that are being worked on We had actually had an amazing presentation a couple a few days ago of University from Waterloo that has been working on performance and so It was quite interesting I mean just to give you a highlight They did a test where they had 3500 Transactions per second and they were able to move that to up to over 20,000 by making a bunch of to be optimization So it was quite striking and it's you know, it really shows the power of open source Right. No matter how big IBM is and how much we put in this and other big organizations You can still have people like that from the sideline who come up with major breakthrough So it's very interesting and and lightning There was one thing that we did in terms of issues that is I don't know what that comes from that so in terms of You know, we're continuing trying to make sure that it's easy for people to join One issue we have I don't know who is he calling me but That's Kelly something's wrong with Kelly's phone, so I muted him. All right. Thank you. Sorry Kelly I'll mute yourself if you want to talk so Yeah, one issue that has come up with discussions and I have reported that quite a few times that you know for people who are not actively Part of the contributors community It can be quite challenging to get their CR the change requests Looked at or even considered by the maintainers part of the issue has to do with the fact that the maintainers are obviously Themself developers and they are busy working on their own and There's I think a little bit of a you know The the maintainers are working with one another making sure that they the review and merge their own CR So each other CRs and all that if you're not part of the core community of contributors It becomes it can become a bit more difficult to get your CRs reviewed and so We've talked about it several times the maintainers have talked about it several times There was you know quite a bit of stress put on the fact that maintainers hold to the community to look into the CRs that are Standing there and so to try to improve things because just begging is not good enough and by the way, there's a also There's also a channel rocket channel that people can go to a fabric PR review that I call the beggars channel because Basically, you can go there to beg for attention from maintainers in your CR But personally, I think you know this should be a last resort and should be exception and it becomes the norm And so we have basically we're putting up in place a process That will automatically first nag the maintainers and at the same time You know what happens is them some people submit CRs and they don't look after them They don't answer questions from the reviewers. They don't you know Rebase them and I know firsthand that can be a pain sometimes you have to rebase multiple times But that's part of the game, right? So we also have decided that you know after after due warning If somebody has submitted a CR that is not and they are not being responsive to comments from the reviewers After a while, we're just going to drop a bond on this year So we hope that you know this combination of things will help us get rid of the huge backlog of CRs Most of which, you know cannot be merged because somebody would have to work on at least rebasing them and addressing some of the comments I Think that's pretty much the main Cracks of what I would want to highlight from the report. I assume everybody can still read read the report That contains a few more things but in terms of community as I said, it's pretty stable Any questions Arnaud that the Garrett policy I presume, you know if it if there's a CR that actually points to an actual bug That you know needs to be fixed that you know Even if it's old rather than shutting down the CR that the developer goes and fixes it rather than, you know Kind of there's a concern I'd have that that ends up burying bugs or burying Otherwise, we are not we are not closing the GR ticket automatically, right? We are we are bundling the CR which is different and the CR is not, you know They can be easily resurrected and so there's still, you know trace of it It's just a matter of getting rid of the backlog Okay, yeah, yeah So presumably somebody else, you know, there's a real bug the jurors ticket is still open at some point somebody's gonna get to do it and Submit another CR or resurrect the first one and and work on it to make it You know current are you all able to hear me now? Yeah, it's sorry about that. I had zoom dial myself on so there were some issues there I was cut out for a few minutes, but it sounds like that was just the wrap-up of the fabric project update, right? Yes Unless anybody else has any questions Just one one mark Observation more than a question. I I think it's useful for for any project of hyper ledger when it's crossing that kind of you know Major version number threshold like from a 1.x to a 2.x to use that kind of moment of backwards Incompatibility like tolerance for backwards incompatibility to take a look at what the other frameworks are doing or other projects at hyper ledger and look for places for Where combining efforts might be helpful or picking up things that other projects have been doing that sort of thing I don't know if any of that happened has been happening in the move to fabric 2.0 but It would be nice if there's still a moment to get in some some something that changes something architecturally And I don't have any specific notion of what just Knowing that there'd be some curiosity on the part of the fabric developers towards others might be reassuring. I Don't know of any specific plans to break backwards compatibility for that matter, but no, you know I mean the the only There are a couple of future point of convergence that I see there's Ursa This is the most obvious one and of course we have the fabric borough Chain code to work. We had the first initial release published two weeks ago or so And but that's not you know, that doesn't break anything. It just adds to the offering unrelated to the notion of unrelated to the notion of Combining architecture when breaking stuff, but on the the fabric EVM and borough relationship I think we've both found bugs in each other since the last it's only since the last review. So We noticed that the fabric EVM were throwing away EVM results and and then sweater and as found a bug in The EVM with their memory return pointers. So that was nice Good This kind of work obviously is beneficial to all there's no doubt As you can say it might sound funny for other people for us celebrating finding bugs in each other's code, but it actually Yeah, no, that's nice the first time that it's it's definitely that it's slide by twice. That's cool That's great. All right. Great. Do we have anyone on from hyper ledger indie for their project update? We do. It's my turn to give the project update this time. This is Nathan. Thanks, Nathan. Feel free to go ahead all right, um, the hyper ledger indie project has grown a lot since the last quarter we have Two use cases that have gone live on sovereign's instance of hyper ledger indie the sovereign main net and are doing a few million credentials in production now and We've seen a lot of growth particularly in the agent side of the code base in standardizing the Agent protocol, which is what we call the edge protocol that allows one identity owner to talk to another identity owner securely and there has been a lot of New project specification work going on in that space and a lot of new code coming online Here in February the sovereign foundation is hosting what we call an agent connectathon at the Provo office and We have organizations from All overcoming to test their agent implementations against one another to finalize some of that protocol standardization work and help make that Move forward much quicker as part of that There's been a lot of stability fixes in the main ledger and there have been a lot of code changes around the agent code base and the SDK We are now to Well, we're almost finished with the 1.8 release of the SDK and We're working on the move from the indie crypto component to switch over to hyper ledger Ursa There have been a lot of challenges associated with that and we have not finished all the CIA badge initiative requirements They're all all the changes have been merged into the code base to meet the CIA bad requirements We've been having trouble getting some of the build system pieces in place to make it so that the code coverage Requirements are fully met. I believe all the pull requests for that have been merged But we've had some infrastructure issues getting the regular run of code coverage happening on a continuous or automated basis In terms of project health We have had a we had a maintainer that switched job Responsibilities and is not as active now, but we were able to add Several new contributors as well as a couple of new maintainers to help backfill that effort and that transition has gone very smoothly And we're seeing increased progress with the enthusiasm of those new contributors and maintainers We also should Call out that the Indy catalyst project has made a lot of progress towards moving into the main Indy code base And that work is ongoing and we've also started work reaching out to the street cred ID folks who are also doing some very good work around agent implementations and net with the Xamarin framework and We are working to propose a new agent wallet project Because of the growth in the Indy code base. It makes sense to move that into its own project that would be able to directly attack cross ledger compatibility and edged issues like cryptographic key management And we expect that that that product project proposal is being drafted now And we expect that we'll we'll set that before the TSC sometime after our release that depends on hyperledger Ursa instead of Indy crypto Um, I mentioned previously that we have had some problems with Builds we have been in for quite some time. We've been moving the build infrastructure out of ever names Corporate infrastructure They've been kind of the primary developers early on of the system And we've had some problems with that build system not being as visible or editable from the community's perspective as we'd like We've had some trouble moving a lot of those pieces to hyperledger infrastructure in particular a lot of the edge protocol work We do around agents requires Android and iOS build support And so it's taken us quite a bit of time to set up some of that infrastructure as a as the sovereign foundation Where we're a nonprofit our bandwidths can be rather limited. So That's slowed some of the graduation from incubation proposals and some of the other things that we've been working on With the new build work going on around hyperledger Ursa I think we have some strategy for fixes to some of the issues that we've been seeing generally in the indie And I'm hoping that we can move more of that infrastructure over to hyperledger going forward Finally it's worth noting in the build or in the project report We have notes on the different releases that happened since the last The last update and we are getting close to various 2.0 efforts inside of the indie project First because of the move over to Ursa and some new API functionality wallets and a few other places We expect that India SDK will be having a 2.0 release because we're following semantic versioning Here before the next quarterly report and the work on the ledger 2.0 design has started Though we don't think any of the major teams working on indie are going to be Resourcing that in the next one or two months before the next project report we expect that our main 2.0 effort will have stood up and That will be doing a lot of building on top of the shared agent wallet projects that we hope to propose once we move over to Ursa as well as Doing a lot more work with the integration that Ursa provides And we've also had a lot of discussions with the sawtooth folks and a few others around some of the new sub projects that They're hoping to build and the overlap That exists there in order to help bring some of the frameworks that hyper ledger closer to get so with that any questions for me This is all fantastic for my point of view Really good work. Is there what's the biggest challenge right now for the indie team from from the either the infrastructure or from Things that that you know hyper ledger staff could be doing better to support Your efforts A lot of the build infrastructure from our side seems very Very focused on what fabric has been doing in the past I think that the involvement we've had on the Ursa build side has helped shift some of that We have a lot of client side build requirements because of our focus on the edge protocol for information exchange And that's been an interesting change from kind of the the blockchain node Build strategy for most server infrastructure. So some of the things around containerized builds work real well for us. And some of them Post some interesting challenges The move from the internal build infrastructure at ever and out to a community centric build system Has meant some of the The terminology that ever used internally and conflicted or didn't match up Very well with some of the things that we were doing at hyper ledger and working through that has taken a considerable amount of time Compliments go to both Tracy and rye for their patience and working through a lot of those issues with us and It's just The amount of turnaround time to set things up has been rather painful because We'll often have to go back and forth for for several days around Understanding the requirements or the the mismatching requirements that's causing a hang-up And then you know when something takes that long in back and forth often the maintainers will have moved on to something else by the time they can come to a resolution Yeah, figuring out the right amount of support for builds that we do is something we have to address in the next few months and and making wise use of internal LF resources versus You know various companies that offer build platforms as a service, you know as something that should be on the table So we'll take note of that Another question I have is you guys have done a really good job bringing in other contributors And I know that's in those small part to to your efforts And and advocacy and speaking. Do you think you could characterize like across the maintainers of Indy? What percentage of time you spend on Recruiting or things that are meta to the development of the code, you know with so that if there's some sort of metric You know if we could say you know to replicate this and obviously conditions are different code is different but Maintainers should spend some threshold percentage of time on recruiting of additional contributors additional You know participants at whatever stage of the pipeline, right? Is there a number? Is it 20%? Is it 60% you know and then is it worth it right from the leverage you get for more contributors? Um, Is it worth it? I would say so for from our experience. It's definitely worth it to spend more time on some of the meta Recruiting of the project itself. I know that I spent a Fair number of hours each week talking to the different Maintainers and the folks who are looking to become contributors and maintainers in the system And we've been able to find and discover a lot of issues early in in the process We've had a lot of the same discussions are no mentioned around pull requests stalling out amongst new contributors And if you seek out some of those organizations and you have a discussion maybe Decide one or two hours a week to have those kinds of discussions with people coming to your community It appears to make a big difference in getting them on boarded and getting people excited about what's going on Doesn't say we don't have a lot of struggles You know Like any open source community can be daunting to to figure out a terminology in the breadth of what's going on And as our project has gotten bigger, I would say that I spend more than probably 20% of my time a week With the sovereign foundation we have a little bit of a luxury in that Our main focus is building the open source community around the indie platform so I Tell the folks working at the sovereign foundation that their goal is to build contributors more so than it is to build code And as a result they end up building a lot of code, but getting a lot more help from those who come into the community Then we would otherwise so in terms of Working at collaborating across the system We found that everyone is really friendly and we just have to remember that everyone's also really busy and keeping that in mind There's been a lot of new opportunities to collaborate and as folks spend the time talking to each other We've been able to find a lot of things that Make that investment pay off With with far more benefit than the time we've had to put in Okay, and so it's more than 20% for you that I'm sure it's probably more than 50% for you I just it's always useful I think when talking to a new project considering coming into hyper ledger or even When looking at an existing project that might have challenges and recruiting new if we were to come back and say You know, I know the temptation is be a hundred percent focused on writing code and getting code out there That works is important part of you know being able to recruit a larger community, but it's steady state 20% 30% of a maintainer's time, you know spending that on Community engagement and recruiting might seem like a big price to pay but that it pays off and in the leverage you get And the distribution, you know, that's that's like Sorry to pin it down to a number, you know, because it's always it always depends right, but I Think what I heard is that it's north of 20% but that for net for for a maintainer But that it's worth it and from our side If you focus that 20% on the things that you're trying to get done, that's where it really does pay off It's not just about, you know having a checklist of things to do to ask people to help It's about making it about the important themes and the important goals of the product of the project Okay, I had a question on the the community piece as well I know you guys have a maintainers call. There's also the identity working group Do you guys host or does the sovereign foundation host more a user focused call? So maybe just more consumers of the platform versus those that are necessarily contributing to the poor platform We have in the past Most of that work has gone to more of an offline Support in the inform dot sovereign dot org And then several of the companies in our ecosystem are doing consulting work and solutions rollouts with various organizations We're working to Resurrect some of the user-facing support Structure that we had in the past we're standing up some more curriculum and Some more training opportunities around specific industry verticals We're seeing a lot of motion in the health care space And a lot of work going on in some of the financial Sectors and then also the government folks have been doing a lot relative to the Organization book work that British Columbia has done. So those are kind of the three Subsets of kind of user-facing community that are to the point where they're doing a lot more talking amongst themselves and I expect we'll see more infrastructure for that as those parts of the community ask for it Okay, great. And as most of that sort of coordinated and happening through the sovereign foundation a Lot of that does tend to happen through the sovereign foundation the hyper ledger community for her for us has been mostly about the development effort a lot of the governance framework and business rules So we've tried to closely Open this strategy that we use here at hyper ledger to help facilitate that community staying very So anyone who's interested in either those business rules or legal rules developments that around some of those industry verticals can join us on the sovereign rocket chat server and on The forum dot sovereign org where a lot of those discussions Post updates Great. Thank you. That's very useful. Are there any other questions on the update? The one other topic that I wanted just to discuss very briefly is how we handle these project updates moving forward So there has been some offline discussion about Having the various TSE members and other community participants ensure that they read These offline and perhaps you've been going so far as to have a checkbox for each TSE member On the various project updates so that the time can be better spent in the meeting really on asking any questions that that weren't able to be Sort of address sort of asynchronously or through confluence So I just wanted to open it up To the community here to see people see back on you know, do they get value from the read-through of the updates? Or how they would prefer to handle updates moving forward as we have more working groups and more projects I really like having the updates on confluence and having them in a consistent place and Being able to actually add comments is a fantastic thing Yeah, agreed. Do you do you like the idea of sort of having these checkboxes for the TSE members to Signal that they've read it. Do you think that that should just be a presumed assumption? Just kind of curious folks thoughts on on that piece of it And I'll share this is something that the Apache software foundation does that it's um because it's board Meets monthly and reviews project updates and they have about 30 with each Board meeting to go through And so they don't read them out during the meeting what they do is read everything at a time and on each one in the agenda Give a you know a plus one for each of the board members who've read it um, and then you know if the report isn't accepted because it's you know blank or or You know deficient in some way then it becomes a topic of conversation So it's kind of exception handling rather than you know kind of the readout like we do So that was that was somewhat of the the inspiration for the the suggestion And it's a way to scale And but it's not intended to take away the value of discussing some of the things that we've discussed today around fabric And indy on a call like this We're still small enough that I think we can have some like some looseness We just want to be efficient with everyone's time So how would we flag that we want to have a discussion if we're if we're going to do that I mean the thing I like about confluence is you can just leave comments and go But it's different than an email list where you're going to see Everyone else's comments with confluence. You sort of have to go back and and track it To see what other people have commented on right well It'll be comments on the wiki and you can either make them as like comments at the end of the page Or even embedded I mean I think the idea is if it's short you would embed it directly there And it's so it's there in the agenda And um, obviously if it's all green light all plus ones across the board No one has any any pushback then, you know, you might go quickly through that during the call or even just say Okay, everything looks good with fabric onto the next Uh, uh, but if there is somebody who says I want to talk about this or or I think this You know, even though I'm plus one deserves a bit more attention than then it could pop up for discussion If the those parties happen to be on the call Mark if you like you can also subscribe to that page In which case you will get all the message notifications that come through I'll be a little bit annoying with all the plus ones, but you will still get notifications It's not like you won't see any of the changes that happen I've been getting a lot of notifications in the last two days There's there's um, there are ways to go in and set your preferences so that you can get them in as digests instead So, uh, you don't have to like sit there and watch every single one But there's there's actually a lot of configuration tools in regards to notifications on conference Message filters are your friend Yeah, I'm just on vacation. So I keep popping up I think maybe uh, another way to potentially handle it is rather than than having everyone plus one Perhaps we could just you know operate under the assumption that uh, if if you don't flag that you want to bring it up as a topic then It's presumed that you've rendered in and approved it um, so maybe that would clear up stuff. So it's really on the The onus is sort of on the tse members if they if they would like a discussion to Uh flag it as as they want to have a sort of a live discussion on it in the meeting I I Respectfully disagree with that. I think um, you know when I'm a good example of this I think we're having enough problems writing the reports let alone assuming everyone's going to read them To your preferences to uh To have the assumption that we will have a discussion on it unless everyone has sort of said this looks good no need for uh To have a questionnaire report Maybe I miss I miss heard you. I thought you were saying just like no one had to plus one it just assume everyone read it So I I think we need to plus one it Yeah, let's not assume silence equals consent Right, okay. I'm sorry. Yeah, not to be too passive about this I um, I would like to advocate us, uh, still having a discussion. Um I I see I see the benefits for scaling of not doing that But I think maybe what we could say, uh, is that Rather than it being exhaustive run over the quarterly update, which is certainly how I've kind of treated it in the past and initially Uh, why don't we make it an opportunity? For the person giving their report because I think it's nice that to hear people's voice on the call to bring up anything That is like a particular notable highlight. They don't have to go for it exhaustively We still actually get a bit of human verbiage um And if it becomes a scaling problem, we can revisit it. Maybe people will have nothing particular to add but um I'm all for maybe cutting down the time for a report, but I think it would be nice for us to default to having some words Well, and you'll notice that from the indie side I usually try to have a lot of folks to give the report It's been a really good chance to introduce some of the other maintainers to the tsc Not only so that you guys can hear their voices But also so that they understand what the tsc is doing and they know when to come and ask questions Which from our project standpoint has been really helpful Yeah, that's a really good point. In fact Sean is gonna be giving Right next week. So okay, any other thoughts on this topic from tsc members or others in the community Okay, so I think perhaps we can proceed with Putting the plus one boxes on the future updates and then that will At least be a way to a sort of signal that that you've read it But we'll still have folks come in to provide any any brief updates And highlights that they would like So do we want plus ones or do we just want me to put a checkbox on them so that they can check their names off I think either works for me. I'm not sure if anyone else has an opinion I I'd quite like a checkbox I feel like Have it forming bit of pressure To be honest, the checkbox are easier because that I can tell where they came from without having histories So that's why I'm pushing it Great, then we will proceed with a checkbox and move forward in the agenda for today So so long. Would you like to talk about some of these discussion topics? Yes, so Working right now to kind of get the learning materials development group Rebooted a bit. They've only got like three people attending the calls and the Participation has been really low and then we had the chair walk away for another job Issue and so trying to get another new chair up and going She did a bunch of documents and materials to help with the reboot, but then She hasn't been able to make it to any of these phone calls I think the time might be very inconvenient for her, but I'll check in with her again because we do have to um The tsc does approve that and we can't have a true election because like I said only, you know three members besides Hyperledger staff are showing up. So Looking at that in regards to how do we reboot that and all of that But how do we also get the tsc to encourage the projects to start sending representatives to it So that we can start looking at like what is the standards that we're looking at for learning materials for all of these development groups Because as Nathan was talking about earlier Those materials end up being key for the contribution portions. So Looking towards that But like I said, she's not here. So, um, I guess I'll get booted again till next week um a pack boot camp Going really well. Sorry just one one quick question on that. Um, I thought that last week there was going to be an email to The learning materials working group to see if if anyone had any objections to Uh bobby taking the chair roll. Do you know if that went out and if there were any objections? I don't think it went out and I'll have to go check with bobby on that one because I did talk to her about it. Um So let me go circle back around Okay, thank you One more comment on this and I hate to sound negative, but you know, we we kind of predicted this might be a challenge right this work kind of competes with the efforts that are going on in each project to develop documentation tutorials and all and You know, some of us try to warn To warn us against that and unfortunately This seems to happen Well, Arna that there was an ask that the projects have somebody on this community to make that connection direct and and not be a competing effort So no, but and you know, I don't mean competing competing in an adversarial way, right? It's it's just because there's only so much one can do and so We have people involved in fabric You know documentation and you know your development and And it's going to be hard to tell them but you should go help these folks too well What what what bobby was talking about in regards to the reboot Was it being very much more meta level and being able to basically Help keep an eye on all of the projects and see how they're doing and what some people are doing is best practices And share that among all the different teams So in a way she was kind of Okay, more support group like I guess is a better way of putting it So it's not redundant or competitive in any way. It's supposed to be complementary Okay, that makes sense. Thank you Welcome if you go and check on um the link there on the wiki She kind of went and just like redid everything on the new wiki for it So if you go in and look you can sit there and see that it's more focused on that And also being able to term and the Health of those of that documentation All right, that'll look thanks And I'm sure fabric will be very healthy Any other questions on the learning materials group? Okay, jump ahead to the boot camp Um, the boot camp is extremely popular. I had to shut off registration Uh, and I'm working with events right now to figure out if we can hand how many people we can actually handle within that space Um, people are filling out. There are different proposals and we're getting that going Julie and I have a separate spreadsheet where we're basically mentoring everyone through how to fill out the sessions um, and we're getting a really Good look at the coverage like um, caliper and explorer and Ursa and indy and aroha and it's it's it's looking really good. So, um, I'm very happy with that I'm also happy with um, some of the stuff that's happening like with Nathan's group For example, is they're looking at how do we create these materials so that they're reusable So that they can be used at future boot camps that we might not necessarily be throwing, but will be um, sponsoring So, uh Very happy with how that's progressing right now any questions um, I I did already get requests from the three different meetup organizers in that area As to when is the next one? Um, because they were are so thrilled with the format the next one is the contributor summit. Um I'm looking uh, I was speaking with events about locations and dates They advised me to look in canada in september october because they believe that um May is too soon Um to find anything in canada right now She said that it was looking tight because they were already doing a bunch of research for several other lf projects so, um They're kind of happy to be able to coordinate it for that time frame And then also speaking with them about the next boot camps, which would be india and brazil And we're working on locations and dates for those as well Will the contributor summit be linked up with the uh general members summit? not Uh, no not currently we're looking at spacing those out um So that we basically have the three big ones, which is the member summit the contributor summit and the global forum And so that's why I was kind of like looking at something separate also Japan is very expensive And I don't have a huge budget So if I did that I think I would blow through all my budget and wouldn't have things for boot camps. So That's another reason All right, but if we're not going to the boot camp then there's really nothing on the radar until september or october You mean Well a member summits usually in Later in the year do you have a sense for when other boot camps are happening? I thought you said there was one in denver possibly coming up Well, no, so the other boot camps that are happening are a bit later. So there's um denver The um, canadian government and def con and those are all in the august september timeframe currently Okay, so then if if somebody wanted to pull together a boot camp earlier Um, and I'm hoping to pull together the india and brazil before that But i'm not sure yet. I have to figure out the the dates and the locations for it. Okay Maybe right that is the space But to mark's point There's no contributors summit before The fall it seems a bit strange because this is supposed to replace the hack face Which you know at some point it was over killing but we were at meeting like every other month Then we shifted towards more like once a quarter and now it's like what once a year Yeah, I mean as has been discussed before The idea that the hack fest, you know, nothing obviously keeps us from getting together more frequently But uh, but to divide kind of the dual nature of the hack fest of being both a core contributor kind of gathering And something that would on board new users as contributors to kind of divide that into two different events because the culture is really different on those two And we would still welcome. We still really need maintainers and core contributors When they can to show up at the boot camps. Um, but in terms of requiring Or really really saying it's really important to be there face to face I think through conversation and In implicit in this is it's really unreasonable to ask people to ask developers who work for, you know startups who work for or otherwise kind of You know Self-sufficient to travel the world four times a year to be face to face. Um, and so once a year contributor summit I think that's a reasonable ask Uh, that's that was that was the reason for this kind of bifurcation of the the hack fest concept into those two So brian when I wrote up the contributor summit, I did write it up for being helped twice a year or more frequently if the community thought It needed it. Um, oh, okay. So I I mean Yeah, I I guess the september date is what's causing concern here Okay, well, why don't we just take take it offline for salon tonight to look at other options For earlier in the year, but but you know Planning these things and asking people to make travel commits and such does require a lead time of you know several months anyway, so Let's see what we can do, but um I I I think we're converging on this. Um, and and if there are Other ways that we can pull together core contributors face to face You know before then for those who can make it We can see about doing that I'm not opposed to twice a year for a contributor summit. I think there's just a it's just you know Asking people to travel is always a big lift, right? And we were doing that a lot for and I think that limited the critical mass at any given hack fest Well, I think I think to that point it may make sense to Um, also look at in in the future of having a peak It was sort of coincident with the global forum or the member summit, you know, if that was a few days before after Then it's you know, you could kind of two for the price of one So that can often be easier for folks traveling if it was maybe a couple days before or a couple days after I'm not sure what folks thoughts are but but then it could be sort of tacked on to Some of these other events, but on a smaller scale Which which gives folks the ability to attend more the broader community as well as the the maintainers piece Yeah, I like that idea. I mean part of it is the Monetary cost of travel the other is just the physical toll of you know going to china for two for two days of meeting And then coming back versus going, you know to china for a week or something is Much easier on the body Especially old ones Everybody's saying here We you know attaching these to places we already have to be Is not too much of a challenge at least for attendants Okay, solana, let's let's also talk about japan then I know budget's a budget's a concern, but um And we assume that be a concern for other people as well, but um, maybe there's I don't know some onset in the mountains That's cheaper or something like that We're having it in a park or a university in tokyo who might be interested in hosting or something like that The biggest problem with universities is their layouts. I know I know we have we've had challenges when we've tried to use creative space As anyone who was in uh, lisbon remembers that But I think we're all lucky we didn't die in lisbon Although if you're gonna die in a european city, lisbon is great to die in but um, yeah Hyperledger ursa was born in the back of a bus It's the rambling project Those are pretty far out creative space Are there any other gender topics that I want to soak up all the time There's things that are backlogged um on some of that, but uh I think I can probably actually get rid of the waiting for submittal of the project from the interrupt Someone suggested that they wanted to do it, but then they haven't followed through after I asked them to Do up a proposal And then there was talk of a bout of a fabric desktop proposal, but I'm not familiar with that yet yet Kelly you said that that was Gone to be proposed as a feature in the fabric project That's correct. That was the last discussion was that uh, they were going to bring that project to the fabric maintainers I haven't heard any progress on that So if anyone is on from The hyperledger fabric maintainers, uh, and has any context on that, uh, that would be great as well And then there was a little bit more discussion about the role of lab stewards, but I'm not exactly sure where that is either Um, I I guess tracy you have background So that was actually the role of the lab sponsor um Sponsors, okay. Yeah sponsors So, um, I think the lab stewards had agreed to what that text should be, but we never brought it back to the tc Okay, so I need to go get that from there and bring it forward Yeah, I'll I'll look for that and I can send it out to the tsc Awesome. Thank you It was brought to the tsc if I remember Yeah, we brought it and then we we had an action item to to go back and talk about it There was pushback Yeah, so I think I think you came to a conclusion, but I don't think we ever came back to the tsc Yeah, I mean, I remember quite a spirited discussion. Yeah, and there was pushback from some some people about that having the Linux foundation employees be able to sponsor projects Yeah, there were two aspects there was that came up and then there was the question of you know What exactly is expected from sponsors because there are people who were hesitant to sign up at sponsors because they didn't know What they were signing up And it appears that some of us have a fairly low expectation about the role It's mostly about endorsement. This is my view at least And others I think dan You know thought that it should be technical people really are engaged with the project And kind of follow it and was not so that's now I I mean there was that but in the end I thought we did reach a decision that it would be the low touch approach that that has prevailed In terms of the sponsors The sponsors are a initial gating factor meaning that they would look at the proposal And see whether it's it meets the requirements for a lab that it's actually something that is Narrow enough in scope And appropriate for the labs. I mean this this was my feeling that we all already decided on it We can go back to those audio Audio files To look at them or we can of course open the reopen the discussion No, no, but I I agree with you I think we we've eventually got to that point and then we just have to write it down and put it before the tsc to say Okay, we approve it and then we call that and update the documentation accordingly I think what we agreed to is, you know, the what is required is fairly minimal But then there's a bunch of things, you know, how much Involved people want to be of course anybody's free to get very involved in the lab That's true for sponsors as much as anyone else for that buyer That's like nick, we are mick in the Private data objects. I mean he seems to be doing most of the comments I'm doing most of the what? There are four of us that are doing commits there. So pretty regularly You're heavily involved. I'm If you're asking me if I'm heavily involved the answer is um, yes, okay Not I'm not asking you. I know that you're heavily involved because I get updates for every comment you do good You're gonna offer a couple of your own maybe if I have time Careful That sucking sound is coming Well, we're at two minutes to the end of the meeting. Um, I don't know if there's was there a Proposal on the table related to roll of luck of the lab sponsors No, no, so the action item is we have to go back and dig up the text that we had Started putting together. I don't know if it's fine or not and then we'll come back to the tsc with The text as a formal proposal to be approved Okay, and with that it looks like we've cleared the backlog. That's terrific And that's like are there any other uh, opens or questions before we adjourn? All right. Uh, thanks for everyone's time today and we will talk next week