 the floor is yours all right thank you welcome everyone this is the weekly tsc call as you probably all know this is a publicly this is a public event anybody is welcome to join and contribute there is a couple of requirements you should be aware of the antitrust policy the notice of which is displayed on the screen if you're online if you're on the phone just make sure you check it out it's linked from the agenda or embedded into the agenda I believe and the other piece is the code of conduct which essentially says that you need to behave like a decent human being so um just do that and you're welcome to keep calling in and joining the call and participating positively hopefully okay so there is a whole bunch of quarterly reports the first one of which is transact it was actually already on the agenda like two weeks ago but I put it back because there was actually a comment raised by mark on the agenda on the report sorry asking for some details about the and it wasn't responded to so we don't need to do this now but I would think it would be good if this could be addressed I don't think there's anything else I just wanted to bring that one up to highlight the comment that has been left unanswered other than that the other four reports I knew this week and I mean we have a we have greater number because obviously we didn't have a call last week so it kind of all piled up but I didn't see going through all the reports I didn't see anybody raising any issues for the TSC to discuss so to expedite I'm not going to go through every one of them individually but I will ask globally if anybody has anything to say about the reports or to ask about the reports any of them so the one that I had a question on was quilt I don't know if it ever got answered I haven't checked my email today but there's a security audit being performed is it the one is it being done through hyperledger or is it being done on their own it's not me it's not us yes okay that's what I was assuming from reading the report but so David confirm confirms that yeah this is David yeah it's a it's a third party that Ripple hired okay thanks David in future is there like is there a recommended path to go through hyperledger I guess I wasn't aware that hyperledger would would also be doing independent security audits or is it more a coordination thing I can answer that it's just that we have resources available we part of our budgets dedicated to doing that for major promoter releases so it's mostly just if you want that done and don't have the resources to do it you know we can do it for you right so we've done fabric and Bezu and a Roja and sawtooth and or say well not yet versus not yet but um yeah so the short answer is yes we have done it there's no rule you have to I guess I think it's good to know and it's obviously a good thing to coordinate with Dave she's be to ensure like all of the CBEs and those sorts of things are tracked through him I would assume right Dave that's correct yeah we we have an actual like security apparatus we have a security team and we have SLAs that we try to to hold up you know meet so yeah we can talk about this later offline yeah um after that report comes in I'll set some time up with you and share it with you and we can kind of see how that should be if there's anything that's found we can see how they should be handled sure perfect thank you all right thank you anything else any other questions okay hearing none I guess we can move forward with the agenda so in terms of decisions so I mean the upcoming reports I'm skipping through obviously there's a page there you can just look it up see what's coming just keep an eye for the ones you own or irresponsible for when it comes to decisions so we have one more issue that is TSE election related that we need to dispose of and the origin of this was that there was you know as part of discussions we had this idea that oh maybe you know we should have observers these are people who are not part of the staff but could do essentially help the that was the premise of this it could help the they could help the the staff but I have noticed two things first the staff is telling me we don't really need that kind of help thank you but and the other aspect and that actually was pretty apparent last week at the I predict your global forum I have to say where this issue was came up several times this actually I think is interpreted in a fairly negative way towards the staff as if the staff cannot be trusted and so we need to have some kind of other party looking over the shoulder making sure they're not fooling around with the whole election process which I'm I'm really sure this was not the intent but I can see how this can be read that way and so at the end of the day I find myself wondering do we even need this at all and I decided no we don't so I am actually putting it before the TSE to vote on with quite frankly the expectation that we would kill this as the agenda says so we would vote against it and I'm happy to hear from anyone before we go there and I can tell you Mark is not here today but I actually had the chance to talk to him about it last week when we had the global forum and because I know he was part of the people bringing it up in the first place and he said he was totally fine with this he did say it would be good to clarify that anybody who is candidate and so taking part in the election should not have anything to do with the election process so that there is no risk of conflict of interest and he said that being said he was fine with killing this proposal and basically saying we won't have any observers so this is a Brian by the way and I'll take the the the fault I believe I was the one that suggested it first I might be mistaken but I recall suggesting it based on the fact that we that that role exists over the hyperlid I'm sorry at the Apache software foundation there are individuals who serve as election observers and so I would not do not intend to ding my own staff on that so much as respond to you know I think in the in the in the last election cycle there was a sense of distance perhaps more perception than reality between what the staff was doing in kind of filtering the list and that sort of thing and the tsc and so it was an attempt to try to close that gap and if the tsc feels it's not needed that's great I just want to make sure that you know and we I think we've done a lot better this cycle just from clearing out a lot of important issues ahead of time and others but just like in the run-up to and as we're filtering out email addresses for voters and in the final election that that we keep the tsc and the the staff close on how the election is being run all right thanks any other comments or questions my question to you is do you want a roll call vote well I well I mean number one it hasn't been you haven't called for vote it hasn't been seconded and I second it okay oh you want to vote okay that's fine Angela's not here are no uh no I want to kill this okay Chris yes we have no bananas uh no okay Dan no Gary no no heart nope uh Nathan abstain sweater no Tracy I'm not sure I'm eligible to vote but if I am it's a no I missed a meeting two weeks ago so I'm not sure if that I think you have to miss more than two in a row oh okay no yeah you're not in the penalty box yet but Troy is actually oh Troy is Troy is here yeah but oh we're here oh but he loses voting rights for the first uh his first time back he's got to be going towards quorum so Troy if you want to say what you want you can but I think the motion is dead all right the motion uh succeeds in failure there we go all right thank you so so or no is it is it true is it true your statement that this was the last lingering item on tsc elections yes until somebody raises a new one at least so you know I don't give anybody any I don't jinx us yeah exactly three minutes before somebody raises one so okay so I'm happy this is done and it also means that there is no no more blocking issues for the tsc election and the stuff should be able to implement the plan as we have laid out so I think it's all goodness all right so I should start my camp I should start my campaign now or no all right no so for those who don't remember the the actual schedule and everything will be communicated beforehand and the election doesn't happen until the fall so there is plenty of time don't uh don't get all excited yet and for non-native English speakers I just want to clarify we're not killing the election observers themselves we're just killing the concept yes thankfully okay so I have two there's two other agenda items in fact the first one is a mistake and you know Dan added this thinking we had a lost track of an item which has to do with the governing doc but I want to reassure him as I put in comment to this the uh I actually discussed this with Brian and he's here he can confirm that you know we had this idea that Silona was actually on the hook to come up to the tsc with a proposal to create a task force to decide how we would handle this and he said they would actually act on this so I'm expecting the ball is in Brian's camp and expect him to come back to us with the proposal or have somebody assigned to do those okay and I mean maybe we can talk about it here just quickly is there a consensus that we want to move governing docs into a git repo and version them there and have that be kind of the single source of truth perhaps away from the wiki or can we continue to use the wiki and you know monitor the space and and that sort of thing the cloud native compute foundation does use git as their repo just some guidance one way or the other and then you know between the community architecture team will just jump in and do that so i'm happy for this to be discussed now if we can get quickly to some resolution but when we tried this before we completely were all over the map and that's what we say okay let's take that offline let's have a task force look at whether the options come with recommendation so you're putting it back for discussion at tsc let's see how it goes I would rather do the task force but okay so I'm I'm in favor of it going into a git repo and the tsc members for that that year or annum are the maintainers for that repo and that way things explicitly get approved by the tsc members and it's under version control yeah and and so so I my counter proposal it right is a very much along Dan's lines is you know rather than a task force to look at the issue you know I if there's unless there's strong sentiment against using git as the place to version and consider the single source of truth for governance docs and process documents you know I think I think there's good argument for going forward with it so so my counter proposal is is to do that I don't think it needs a tsc roll vote but but certainly supported by a consensus of the conversation here and then we can just get started on that so for the record I'm fine with that I'm happy to move to I think there are some issues like okay what does it mean for the issues do we use github issues do we use still use the decision log in the wiki let's let's continue to use the decision log in the wiki um I think the important thing is uh make making sure that those as decisions are reached that have implications for the governance docs that there's like a corresponding pull request you know that that can be pointed to so that we know when we're approving a decision and decision log you know what that correlates to and and in which pull request and which change I'm good with that yeah this sounds good can we also just make sure there is actually a single source of truth right now some of our documents are contradictory and we may need to to streamline them you know we just can't take what we have and currently dump it in get so that's part of the plan right is to create one document that has all these pieces together and then I would hope that we retire all the pieces that are on the wiki that might conflict with whatever comes out of this process yeah I think I think that makes sense and I think we can bootstrap it with an initial series of pull requests that will create the tsc repo and you know have the the the tsc as you know kind of developers on that repo committers on that repo and then just start issuing pull requests and as those pull requests get accepted then decommission the related wiki page okay anybody objecting to this course of action no but I like the idea of the brian was suggesting of you know ensuring that this pull request associated with the decision log decision at least one that's you know requires some modification obviously wouldn't apply if we killed something but I think then that sort of means that the decision is tied to a pull request not that we're expecting one to come after or whatever that way we're sure that we're cleaning up any loose ends to address parts point yeah at steady state you know at the decision and the decision log would have in its description here's a corresponding pull request right and that's what we're reviewing as a resolution I guess yeah yeah yeah I'm fine with that so for your for the sort of initial commit I think there is an idea back when this first started that the task force would need to be uh pulling together these disparate sources and there might need to be a little bit of uh pre-organization so we probably don't need to to get into the details of that but just as a reminder that uh that was an observation earlier right I think I think let me talk with the other community architects about this but I think what we can do is get an initial commit kind of teed up that tries to cover you know most of what's well we can set the governance talks and uh and then you know put it up and then we can talk about that here at the TSC you know when it's ready and and if it looks good you know accept it and then accept a series of you know improvements after that until we think we we're complete but I think we can be additive and I think the CA can drive it the the only other thing that I would maybe ask or um you know maybe somebody can explore this would be if we can take the commit and turn that into a github action that actually updates the wiki so that we have everything in the wiki as opposed to scattered all over the place um yeah that's an interesting idea how to update the wiki Dave do you know um I believe there is a programmable api for confluence so in theory we could write a script that doesn't yeah we just have to make sure those pages aren't editable through the wiki sounds like a good feature request yeah yeah we can't guarantee that that works as anticipated but certainly there'll be links from well yeah I'm just suggesting that we try to have the the governance all sort of from the wiki as opposed to different places that's all right have everything be pulled downstream from from the repo from the repo itself yes plus 1000 I totally agree with automation all right let's leave it at this for now this isn't something the staff can look into see if it's possible at all why we take I think we've made some progress so let's leave it at this for today and let's move on fair enough so the other item we have for discussion is the long-term agenda that Dan put up to for discussion last week or the week before I should say the last call and I actually was not able to attend as you guys know and I did listen to the recording and clearly there wasn't much time left on the call to get it to get a real discussion going on but I just wanted to get back to it and see whether we could make any progress I have to say even though there wasn't much time on the call it didn't seem like people jumping in to share ideas or comments so I don't know if it was you know I don't know that was representative of how people feel but I'm happy to give everybody a chance to talk we have half an hour left so let's take advantage of this Dan do you want to say something about it to reintroduce this yeah sure started yeah so uh like you said at the end of the the last TSC meeting we just had a couple minutes so we just introduced the topic there and I hope people had some opportunity to think during global forum whether you're there or not and reflect on this there's a couple of framing points in here one of which was hey we originally spun a lot of these technical discussions out of the TSC intentionally and now that the TSC is hungry to get back into some of these technical discussions and coincidentally the the working groups have moved away from deliverables it might be a good time for us to uh reincorporate that scope back into the TSC and also try to reincorporate those participants so one of the first notions here is can we encourage what's what's the appetite for encouraging the architecture working group participants and uh agenda to come back into the TSC so we've got also linked below is a notes that the architecture working group put together after their meeting when when this topic was introduced and there's also a comment below from from mc as well so i think that's probably the the first point of discussion is what do people think about bringing some of these working group discussions back into the TSC in heart i know you sit us tried a couple of these groups so uh we can get the ball rolling with what your take is on whether it would be constructive to bring those discussions back over uh sure i actually missed the architecture working group meeting uh where they created that document uh so i can't speak for everyone there but i guess the question was a lot of people thought sort of some kind of ideal long-term solution was a sort of modular convergence that we talked about for many years and the question was how do we get there so so that's what most of the discussion was about and i guess the architecture working group participants were interested about what the TSC members thought about something like this and if there was anything we could do to bring some of the project some are all of the projects together okay so that's a good example of a topic that came out of that group that we could bring into this session do you think that the working group participants are interested in in having that discussion in this form um sure yeah i think they would probably be happy to do so okay uh go ahead dan it's my just could you um the the discussion right now is very um esoteric and philosophical could you be a little more um bring it back down when when you imagine how this works how do you see it working i guess i'm having a hard time understanding what the question really is uh so the the architecture working group had an agenda and i'm not up to speed with where the agenda is now um but at some point some of those agenda topics were things like what what hart had just related uh and so we were having those discussions outside of the TSC and there wasn't good i don't know i don't think there was good synergy between the two groups and so i'm looking for way to bring those discussions back in so where there were architectural discussions about how do you uh what would be components of a converged architecture um maybe you could fill me in with some of the other agenda items that they could be relevant here but that's that's sort of the the i don't know the concrete thing is bring the agenda items in and then we don't have an uh it helps solve the absence of topics that are technical that otherwise get filled in with with some sort of bureaucratic minutiae so historically the architectural working group and has been much more focused on sort of descriptive right sort of uh represent or describe what common features are of the existing platform uh and that the are you suggesting a more prescriptive nature in those in that dialogue or um or is this just uh there's a bunch of interesting topics for discussion and we could go down through uh how to make chain code unify how to do interoperability across blockchains how to do identity i mean there's a bunch of those topics obviously that they could be brought in to to discuss but i'm still trying i'm still trying to sort of get my head wrapped around what it is what you want to pull out of us and how can we support you so i'm game for a pretty wide array of those um i think that we get to prescriptive after having some of the descriptive conversations and i think that to get to that point we needed sort of prime the pump with with some technical discussions if we take an example right uh of what the architectural working group has already done they've done a white paper on consensus and describing what consensus is they've done a white somebody's dog wants to talk to me as well uh they've done a white paper on smart contracts as well right and those have both been descriptive so i guess the question that i assume mick is asking here is now that those descriptive white papers are done are we suggesting that the tsc is going to be prescriptive about how consensus should work across all of the platforms and how smart contracts should work across all of the platforms hey this is brian i think i think dan's for you know example questions are are a pretty good place to start you know they're kind of asking at a top-down view which is you know what the i think the tsc should be thinking about like you know i really like the question things like gaps in our portfolio um ways to be working more closely with each other um and then i think leaving it to the working groups you know once you set kind of a strategy or a picture um which those questions i think can either lead to or or answer as a hyperledger wide kind of kind of concept then you know the the you know actually manifesting that turning that into something real is something that you could you know delegate out to the working groups for further detail um the tsc tsc is not a great place to sort out details on these things you know certainly not at the depth of you know recommending certain consensus mechanisms over another and i think it is still important to leave road mapping to the individual projects but to highlight priorities and to try to certainly you know raise the level of commonality across our projects i think would be would be a pretty useful thing for the tsc to be doing but working with the working group structures so that you know the the details can be sorted out in smaller groups could be that you know kind of a strategy document yeah or some sort of kind of you know sense of the the tsc on where it should spend the rest of 2020 right um what would be good to be ending 2020 with you know across our projects or new projects in here that aren't in here those those sorts of things yeah and uh i'd like to the tsc on thoughts about you know it can be specifically about incorporating the the working groups or it could be reaction to those starter questions that are listed in the issue um but uh so we we haven't heard from Troy very much uh yet on this call we were having a little fun with with you having missed a couple sessions so maybe i'll i'll put you in a more positive seat here to to give us some reflection on how you think we can derive a more technical agenda here you have to give that a little bit more thought i think i i think that is very important actually but i will have to think about how we could actually do it by the way thank you mc for enabling the conversation the architecture working group reporting back because i thought that uh the report was very useful very informative likewise anything for you and and Arno and Dan just you guys are awesome so just ask so i just wanted to react to one thing that the brian just said i mean brian you you i i feel like this question in general is a hard one and and the architecture group i mean mech has been lamenting for years and the fact that you know the architecture working group and the tsc more generally speaking does do not have teeth and and you know we're talking about having prescriptive action here which in itself is a challenge but you put on top of it the notion of a deadline which i find even more challenging i you know at this point i'd be happy to have some kind of long term plan with that even trying to nail down a date like the by the end of 2020 this is where we should i mean i know you like to set uh challenging i just think you know whenever one's talking about scope uh time is one of the first things to try to address in that scope right um but i don't mean to over constrain the conversation at this point apologies for that yeah i i do like though the the idea that sometimes in in trying to set out some objectives that's what stimulates some of the actual work so if we could say at the end of this tsc term which is probably too soon but say that by the end of 2020 we would have liked to have a certain list of accomplishments and maybe coming up with what those are is one way that we could do that framing and start driving how we go about that whether it's directly with the working groups or some other mechanism um sort of a slightly different way to look at that is that might be a good thought exercise for next time is if we were going to draw a new greenhouse what structure would it have would you put some new rooms in that green greenhouse does the tools box need to be larger um and then tying that back to prescriptive action i don't foresee us ever saying hey fabric you need to explicitly integrate with ursa or transact uh that feels like not the right kind of open source process but what we could do to be still prescriptive is draw out that green greenhouse that has a new box in it and that helps focus the community on saying um here's a kind of project that helps fill out that that box otherwise what's historically happened is is we just get a more react more we're less proactive than how we build out the portfolio and it's more reactive to whatever the is is offered up by people in the community so Dan can i just jump in and just make one suggestion on this which is um it's it's really nice to talk about common modules and tools and and if you look at the greenhouse right now that's not how it works um you know we have we have tools in libraries but those tools and libraries are really part of um that okay i don't want to use word sub project but they're really closely connected with and have and have parents that way how do we motivate um more long-term thinking in the projects rather than release by release thinking because if we don't if we don't motivate to build things that work cross product then whatever discussions we have about cross platform are irrelevant so it seems to me like one of the first things that needs to be queued up is um how do we how do we build out that community of people who are thinking less about release to release and more about generation to generation and by the way that's not an easy problem that that's not my point but but i think if we don't do that then the rest of these discussions are just you know blowing hot air with the i think the real the interesting part of your question mic is i don't mean it to sound this way but but what's the the only word i can think of is what's the incentive or rationale for someone to do that yeah i and that's one thing that i meant to imply with one of those starter questions which is what's what's the maintenance overhead in some of these projects so it's it's for example not worth um ledger x's time to rewrite their signature api just to include uh ursa for the sake of including ursa it has to be either here's a new feature that's provided by ursa so now it warrants developer time to integrate it or it's such a pain in the neck for me to be constantly managing these these other independent libraries that it is now a lower cost uh to make use of ursa or one of our other libraries if so yeah go ahead well so i was going to suggest so it feels awkward to me to have this be a tsc conversation when really what we're talking about is having various maintainers of the various projects making these kinds of discussion you know having these kinds of discussions and making such decisions amongst themselves and what we should be focusing on is maybe sort of just sort of suggesting a vision of where we think we'd like to see the community try to get to um and approaches for how we might encourage that kind of um cross project collaboration rather than being you know specific about you know do x and y or whatever and i say that because i think at the end of the day you know there are some things that are happening sort of somewhat naturally between some of the projects and what we ought to do is figure out how do we encourage more of that rather than trying being prescriptive about what we think you know whose chocolate should be in whatever is peanut butter um but rather to highlight where the collaboration is occurring and trying to reinforce more of that behavior does that make sense yeah we'll put that doesn't that make sense but if i maybe you know and i know Dan i forgot to get i didn't get back to you on this one but i think if i if i read into some of like oh maybe i'll just speak for myself right i guess that makes sense though chris but i think part of the thing is okay so think about the name of our group of this of this group that we are members of it's called the technical steering committee and i'll just restate what i think Dan said earlier we don't actually do anything technical yeah you keep saying this but when we say okay what else do you want to talk about there's silence for the most part well i know but the question is like what would people you know yeah i think this is an attempt you know i guess that's where i'm going back to where Dan was sort of going at right is you know do we want you know and i mean onus is on to us right i think it's not always going to be every membership of a of a tsc is going to always do the same thing i guess maybe we're saying but what would be interesting if people wanted to do something you know technical do we want to have a set of problems that we would want to solve i mean as leaders that are in here um do we want to take a stab at are we allowed i mean we're allowed to do anything but writing some specter of something right i i don't know you know or is it that we're really not a technical steering committee i i guess maybe that's a broader question okay so i suspect people have different expectation that was a steering committee the technical steering committee is supposed to be doing anyway but i think the nature of the way hyperledra has grown into this greenhouse with multiple projects that you know makes it that people don't have expertise across the board it makes having deep technical discussions difficult anyway but i think i wanted to follow up on what chris was saying because i agree that you know pretending that we can have prescriptive action i think is a bit of a stretch i think we can have recommendations but at the end of the day the projects are open source project they're based on voluntary participation we literally cannot force anybody to do anything we have to convince them that somehow it's in their interest that they will feel compelled to do it but we can't do that and so far we haven't really done that we have said hey we we would like to see more collaboration and i think what we are touching on here is this idea of going beyond just an general statement saying yeah cross-point nation integration within the project would be good and to trying to identify specific areas where maybe we could have this kind of you know enable integration or cooperation between different projects and i think if if we can articulate what those points are and motivated because as it was said i mean unless you give a rationale for doing this and people don't see any benefit they just won't do it but i think there's there's some interesting work that can be done there that is fairly high level you know it may not be as technical as some would like gary included but still more technical they're talking about elections and and high level that everybody can participate in trying to you know set some general technical direction that we can communicate across all the different projects moving forward hey this is brian and i know i not being a tsc member generally speaking we the staff should should take a backseat to this stuff and let you talk but some thoughts that occur to me there's two dimensions in my mind there's reactive and prescriptive and then there's i carrots and sticks so the term steering i mean another project's often that instead of calling it a technical steering committee it's called the technical oversight committee and and the word steering might be something that we're struggling with because the metaphor of you know a single driver with his or her hands on a wheel setting a precise direction forward is really not what's possible in any community like ours right no matter how much code we're overseeing even if it was just one project generally speaking what a body like this has is carrots in the form of here's something cool that we should all aim towards or or a help or you know guide people towards that that is showing promise is bearing fruit and maybe at a certain point it becomes clear here's a an architecture approach a way to do interoperability whatever that that really now has proven itself and maybe it should start to be the standard or at least everybody aware of it right and and you know when we think about how to do x we think about that together a stick is you know you must do this and we do have sticks today in the project you know in the form of things like using the dco's using github you know following other sorts of processes and did we lose brian yeah i lose brian or you lose brian okay i think i just i just wanted to sort of um chime in on the the whole tsc thing and encourage people to actually read the description of what the tsc is about it was never going to be about specifically setting direction for the project i think it maybe is a project but whatever um it was really more about the you know sort of dealing with the sort of um the the the the white space in between the various projects in the sense of you know there's a continuous integration environment and you know where there may be some integrations or what have you and if there are any technical disputes that you could bring it to the tsc to get it resolved but basically we were the whole point was to let the projects be projects right let them run their own uh decision making and not do it for them so you know maybe it's misnamed i don't know you know but um it was never really intended to be some sort of high level director of where this is all heading but it was to you know help you know figure out who gets to be incubated and whenever that part is still our job yeah so some other kinds of theory that we can do yeah so some of these theory that we can do are do we create spaces for the right kind of projects to to happen so if we create another opening on that greenhouse do we create the space for a couple projects to move together into that space do we set up more collaborative opportunities like the maintainer summits or hack fests they create that opportunity so there's steering that we can do that doesn't mean being explicitly telling one project to do something which we're never going to do so try to so i posted i guess my my rough thoughts on the chat channel but uh it's just tricky because where do you do these cross project projects if that's not the focus or the current goal of uh of maybe maybe a particular project right not not calling video but um everybody has their current priorities and there's no space to do these cross project projects um i don't know if that will ever happen inside the greenhouse or it just happens organically outside i think those are good conversations to have i think that's what labs was intended to be was a place to do these sorts of experiments i guess my my point problem with that is these aren't considered experiments and the lab label really shouldn't apply so so i hear that with experiments but if you're doing cross project um efforts it's just it's just hard to call that a lab you might as well just build in your own repos that's just my opinion of course but yeah well thanks for offering that up Troy here is one of the the newer voices here i find it really helpful to hear uh your take on these things i think the the labs can be a place where we do cross project things that's worked out a little bit for for some things like uh or so um but we also don't need to focus exclusively in this technical direction on cross project that's been a big theme for us for the last year or two how do we get some convergence or more more cross project activity um there's also other avenues that we could be steering so one of those other open questions there is you know what are we missing in this greenhouse is it missing some other kind of uh i was going to make some some sort of greenhouse metaphor but it turns out i don't really know much about greenhouses so um you know is there some other category that we're missing there but but i think i think Troy's point is something that we should be thinking about right if if labs is not a good place to do these sorts of experiments or it's hard to do them there um then then labs isn't meeting its goal right and so that seems something that we should probably discuss and try and figure out what the right space is for the sort of work that Troy is suggesting can't be done in labs or it's hard to be done in labs well i mean maybe you know it occurs to me i mean one of the problem and i has been reported to me that maybe we should do a better job at you know helping people figure out what labs are out there because we have a lot of them now and it's kind of getting complicated to see what's there and you know find figuring out what each lab is about and but one thing i mean i think it can make a difference is whether you know we could have some kind of like tsc um how do you call that like a highlight of some labs that we are specifically interested in or that i think you know with the help with the greenhouse as Dan suggests like filling some gap that we perceive and maybe you know kind of advertise them to facilitate more conversation or have more people join in well and this is Nathan this is where i think i've been struggling to articulate kind of where we're trying to go with this because i mean the technical steering committee ideally represents leadership amongst the maintainers of the projects and you know when we talk about steering the project as a technical steering committee part of what we're talking about is how we effectively are advocates and evangelists for each other across the different subsets of maintainers right and you know i think when we talk about maybe labs isn't the right place we're not trying to say that labs isn't a good place for lots of things what we're trying to say is that when we need to advocate for something across the maintainers for say Aries and fabric or sawtooth or quilt or whatever it happens to be we need to be able to engage that maintainer community in a more holistic way and have a discussion at the tsc level about what the right place for things are and how do we help those teams and facilitate those teams working those issues out and often when we've tried to address those kinds of issues we haven't been very successful at getting the actual code developers and maintainers to engage and we need to figure out how to set a vision of what the tsc is trying to accomplish so the maintainers know what to pay attention to and when we say this is a good idea we actually end up with a result in conversation that that makes sense in terms of things that we can that are actionable right so the maintainers don't just say oh well yeah the tsc talks about stuff a lot but instead they go oh yeah i see how that's a good idea i'm gonna go try something there might be something to uh also maybe that we could do off of that too Nathan which is i think you said you know maintainers obviously are kind of who are people who are steering directions of the individual projects themselves um there's a you know an interesting twist to that would be you know one thing that i don't know able to help but you know one thing that i think everybody struggles with i mean the answer of why on most things is simple there's always one core group of people let's face it they're developing each one of these projects they've whoever submitted it in the first place yeah we have community contributions blah blah blah but you know maybe an interesting note could be maybe that's something that we could you know say hey look community if you're interested in like contributing here's actually a concrete set of things that aren't just like you know fixing bugs or whatever but we want to we've decided that we like xyz out of whatever areas or whatever it may be how about you know figure you know integrating them into existing projects like maybe you can get maybe we could actually find a way to say this is something we recommend doing we currently don't have you know capacity or whatever to do it but if are there are there people out there that's the interest in this as a use case and if so you know we maybe we can help guide you on how how to implement even if you don't have the you know the the time that we coded ourselves so maybe it's a way of getting more contributing I don't know if that will work let's all just tie the gap together all right we're getting close to the end here any last comments so i'd like to ask people generally specifically on the tsc but generally to to go into that issue and maybe propose some additional leading questions and try to carry this conversation forward over the coming week I've also invited one of the one of the talks that I listened to at global forum they they sort of went right into some observations that they had on on things that they thought would be good in the portfolio so I've invited them to come and present next week and so we'll have some some contributors from the community to help us with this conversation next week as well all right good advice okay so with that being said I think I'm going to try and close this call I did want to point out for those who have seen at some point on the on the agenda there was a pointer to the Solang proposal project proposal it was later taken out of the agenda the reason being that the proposal was withdrawn and I just wanted to explain a little bit for those who may wonder what happened I had the pleasure to meet Shenyang last week in at the global forum along with I think he met quite a few people there were a lot of discussions and invariably pretty much I think the feedback he got was there would be a challenge to create a project with so few contributors and so based on you know he got the sense that the TSC was not really supportive of quitting the project at this point and so he decided to withdraw the proposal and keep working in the lab and hopefully he can get the community around it and hopefully this you know if nothing else out of this you know the proposal that was made it has already increased some expo given it more exposure increased visibility and maybe that will draw you know more attention and hopefully contributors to it but so that's why it was briefly on the agenda and then take it out so all right with that being said I'm going to close the call thank you all for joining we'll talk again next week