 You can stay on the agenda. Go for it. All right. Welcome, everyone. This is the weekly TSC call. This is public call. Anybody is welcome to join this and in and contribute. There are two requirements, being ready to live by the antitrust policy and the code of conduct. All of which I suspect everybody knows by now. So we have quite a bit to discuss that I put on the agenda. Hey, can you refresh? I've got one for the election there that should be in there. I had it just a minute ago. So refresh. Sorry, I don't know. Apologize. I already have an agenda. I tend to this others. Is there more? No, no, there it is. Sorry, I didn't see it. It's OK. I think we should wait a bit. Let's get through the quarterly reports first. So there were two quarterly reports that were submitted, one for Cactus, one for Cattipur. I didn't see anything requiring specific discussion by the TSC. But as otherwise, please let me know if anybody has any questions or comments or if one of the project representatives want to highlight anything specific for the TSC beyond what's in the report already. OK, if not, let's keep on going. I do want to highlight the Avalon report is due. So please, if you're part of this project, make sure it happens. Otherwise, we're actually doing pretty well in terms of where we are. This is the start of October. So we are getting into the Q4 reports. But so we have, except for Avalon lagging a bit, we have got all the Q3 reports. So we're in pretty good shape. And just to chase after people, it looks like the Cactus report was only seen by about half of the TSC and likewise with Calipur. So just a nudge to TSC members to try to review those. I think it's important that we get the majority, if not all, the check marks in there each week. And as a matter of fact, I've noticed that having this call and linking to the report seem to be a good trigger for this to happen. And so when there is no call, we just keep a week. Things don't seem to be done or reviewed the same way. So if anything, I think at least semi-regular call seems to be helpful in getting these things done. So TSC election, Dave, what's going on? There's been a bit of hiccups. Yeah, so I'm just going to try to keep this brief. We had to restart the election this weekend because we had some issues with naming of one of the candidates. And so some of you may have received two ballots. Just disregard the first one, cast your ballot. And the second one, this does not allow people to vote twice. The first one is dead, dead. You won't be able to use it. If you already did cast your vote, you need to cast it again using the second ballot. If you had cast it before Monday at 10.30 AM Pacific. Correct. Thanks, Brian. Yeah. So that's really what's been going on. Other than that, we had a really clean voter rolls. And we've been able to get emails out to pretty much everybody. We have 88 out of almost 300, or sorry, almost 800 people vote. So make sure you get your votes cast before too long. We're going to go through the 10th of October, like midnight on the 10th of October Pacific time, is when I'm going to shut it down. Dave, there's a lot of emails coming into elections that people haven't gotten their ballots. I sent one right after I cast my vote for somebody from the Accenture team. What's going on with those? I'll be going through those today. And onesie twosies trying to get everybody make sure they have a ballot. And yeah, so I'm just going to address them as they come in. Yesterday, we got hung up on dealing with some other things. But yeah, it's first the top of my list for this morning to go through all of these. OK, I mean, I sent mine on Monday, so then I haven't heard anything back. We were dealing with the restarting of the ballots. And yeah, we were doing other things. I will be responding this morning. For folks who don't know, there's an elections email list, which we are on in a few of the other folks, TSC members, I believe, handling these deliverability issues where sometimes, even though we put it into the system, the mail isn't able to get to the voter themselves. So we have a second path through Salesforce Marketing Cloud that we've used to reach all the voters to make sure that, presuming that has different deliverability issues, perhaps better deliverability to look out for a ballot if they don't have one to let us know through that elections list. So there's a process here. And I just want folks to know that there's also this transparency to this additional group of folks on the elections list. Yeah, so as Tracy was saying, there are quite a few people reporting not having received the email. And I think an email needs to be sent to all the voters, telling them about these two ballots. Because I know Rice sent an email to the TSC list. It says part two, which I don't blame you, right? But it wasn't quite explicit what that meant is that people need to be told, if you have cast the first ballot of a vote with the first ballot, forget it. This is gone. And so you need to cast again your vote with the second ballot. And so because we're going to miss people, otherwise. I know there's roughly a dozen people who have reported not receiving a ballot, not many, many, many. And we did send an email out using Marketing Cloud yesterday evening. Maybe it had gone out this morning. I needed to double check with Jessica. But the CA team, we crafted an email explaining what happened. I talked to Jessica last night at about 8 p.m. Pacific time to get it queued up. I'm not sure if it has gone out yet or might have gone out last night. But I know it's being queued, and I know it's going out. OK, I have not received it yet. So I didn't know if it was done or not. And I wonder how useful that is. I mean, it'll be useful. You'll probably see a lot more than 12 people reporting that they haven't gotten their ballots. But it doesn't help them cast their vote, right? If they don't have the ballot, there's no way to cast their vote. Yeah, of course. But that's a different problem. I agree with you, Tracy. But we also need to tell people who was going that there is this restart. I don't think the restart was communicated quite well. But the other thing is there is a Maria Teresa Nieto said that her name was misspelled. Was that fixed? So no, that one wasn't fixed. So I copied and pasted these from the nomination statements. And so if it was misspelled on the wiki, it's misspelled on the ballot. I have updated the procedure for next year so that the week we spend confirming everything, part of the process will be confirming names on the ballots. So a ruin one, that one was my fault because I had misnamed his nomination thing. And so that was corrected on the wiki. But there was like just a timing issue. And we can't keep restarting this vote. I'm sorry. Well, I agree. But I, for one, voted with the first bad art just before you send the second one. And then I saw Maria's email and I was like, oh, they are going to restart again. I'm holding off until I know for sure I don't have to go through this voting process again and again. So I think you should respond to mine. Maybe you have, not on the list, I didn't see any response to let her know. We apologize, but at this point we'll have to keep it the way it is. Yeah, it's top of my list to go through and respond to all the emails in the election mailing list this morning. So as soon as we got this call, I'll be going through each of those and addressing them. Okay, thank you. Any other comments or questions? Yeah, what was the address from which the email was sent? Because I can't find mine either. Although I did get email from Rai, but I think that was to the TSC. The email comes from, just hold on a moment. It comes from civs.cs.cornell.edu. C-I-V-S. So Charlie, Indigo, Victor, Sierra at cs.cornell.edu. And what email do you expect it to come to, Chris? My work email. Okay, well, let me double check that that's what we have for your voter rolls, for our voter rolls. I'm hoping to have an email that says Chris works. You'd be more explicit. Master saying 24. All right, let's not spend too much time on the specific case, sorry, Chris. Chris, I'm gonna ping you directly on chat.hyperlegio.org with the email address that I have for you, okay? Ah, is that gonna work? That would be fine, but again, I didn't get an email, that's what I'm saying. I've checked all my emails. Well, maybe we have the wrong email for you. Maybe not eligible to vote. I am, I checked. He totally is, he's in there. I know. I didn't see it at the given time. All right, I have enough of this discussion, guys. Clearly it's not been perfect. We'll have to make it to keep improving, but let's make sure everybody gets to vote at least. All right, thank you for your efforts, Dave. Let's keep moving. Yeah, borough. So there was a brief discussion on this last, on the last call. I wanted to, you know, just give everybody a chance to speak up if they wanted to. I mean, Silas was pretty, you know, candid in his report, saying that, you know, they are busy with other things in Monax and they don't expect much activity, if at all, in the next several months. And so he was candidly asking, you know, well, I don't know what you want us to do with this project, but I've heard, you know, the people who have spoken up so far have all said, hey, we use at least the borough EVM in our project. You know, this is an important piece for us. We want to keep borough. And so my assumption is we have acknowledged Silas, you know, notification that there's not going to be much activity for the next quarter, but we're okay with this and we're not going to take any other action, you know, with regard to borough. Does anybody want, is it really cool with this or does anybody want to say anything else? I guess as someone who's not involved in the EVM process, my only question would be, are there folks that are paying attention to any vulnerabilities or fixing bugs if there are any? Hi, this is Silas. Well, there's certainly us. There you are. There's all, hi. Welcome. There's also, ah, yes, no, no, it's been a little while. I had to find the Zoom passcode. There is another company that has been building on top of borough that I haven't caught up with recently, but I know that one of our other maintainers caught wind of their mentioning borough. So I think the name of the company's escaped me. I've put it on a previous report. So there's us, there's them, but yeah, there's not, there's not an incredibly high amount of usage flux, I guess, to be finding issues, but I mean, it's not particularly worse than before. There's also the other piece of work that I could have mentioned that Sean mentioned is that he's been working with Solang and getting the WASM support, so Solidity to WASM is in there. Yeah, I mean, I haven't seen responses. I think maybe I was slightly, I wasn't trying to be doom and gloom. I've got no desire to wrap, burrow up, but I also don't in the near term have an ability to sort of guarantee that work will be happening on it. It's essential for Monax, there's more stuff to do, but yeah, it has always been kind of, oh, we just need a few extra people to be interested and we'll have all this stuff done and that's kind of jammed tomorrow argument, so I just wanted to be clear what the next little while was looking, so but if there's no urgent need to kind of worry about sunsetting burrow, then I think that I would expect to see a pick up in activity, certainly from us, hopefully from others next year. Okay, well, again, thank you for the transparency here, but back to Nathan's question, do you have an answer if there's like a critical problem, severity, like security issue, would you guys be able to address it? Yeah, yeah, it's not like a zero time available. It would have to go through the GitHub issues. You know, it's still like monitored, we're still making fixes, we're just not doing a lot of feature work. Okay, thank you. I saw Brian has his hands up. Yeah, I don't want to take any time from the other TSC members who want to comment on this, but in my mind, there's, you know, eventually I think this is better addressed on your proposal around project maturity, but for me, a project like this, there's three things to think about it. I think the most important thing is just as Silas confirmed, if a security hole was noticed that there's time and resources and attention enough to be able to at least address that and push out an update and, you know, work with the security team on, you know, coordinating a certain, notice if that's required, that sort of thing. I'd say the second most minimal thing would be if other developers did show up that there's just enough attention paid to be able to help them bootstrap into solving the problem themselves and then helping them be a part of contributing into the code base, right? Perhaps nurturing new maintainers in the course of that, but at least, you know, not a closed door to fixing of bugs or those sorts of things if that other help materializes. And then the third kind of thing is just, you know, supporting newbie users, you know, people who have kind of beginner questions. There's not a lot of those that I see in the borough community, but that seems to be a small trickle still and I think that's an essential part of helping grow new contributors. But those in my mind would be the three ranked kind of things that if those weren't there, then it's time to talk about, you know, a path similar to stay composer or back into labs or something. But I feel like those are all here. I'm hearing that in Silas' words, I think. And even the prospect beyond that of some new work, but yeah, I just thought that might be helpful. All right, thank you. Any other comments from anyone? Yeah, I mean, my main concerns would be the security issues that we just discussed, you know, if something comes up. But also, you know, if you're on the main hyperledger page, all the projects are sort of up there with equal footing. And I know it wouldn't help borrows health per se, but you know, do we want to somehow discourage people from starting to use it if it doesn't have things dedicated to it. I mean, I'd love for people to join the community, but also people to come in and just use the code without contributing back. So, you know, that'd be my concern is if someone comes in and tries it and they're not getting support that they need, then it gives hyperledger a bad name in general. Not just the- Is that much different than Brian's third point? Well, I forget which one of Brian's. I think it was the last one, right? About helping bootstrap in the community and people were in there, right? And, you know, making sure that there's not a, that there's not silence, you know, or crickets, you know, if somebody does actually have questions about borrower, right? I mean, that's what I would agree. I agree with that point. And I think if there were people who were contributing stuff and I didn't get the thing from Silas' note that it wasn't just like, hey, we're not adding new features. Clearly, I think if there are bugs in there and I guess the other one would be if people did want to contribute and we're making fixes, right? That you don't end up with a backlog of like, you know, 70 polar class, right? And again, I didn't get that feeling that that's what Silas was meaning in his note. So I guess, Mark, I guess you see a difference between being out there and Brian's point of addressing it when people, if somebody complained that there was no attention given to it. I think Mike was intended more, you know, there's nothing, if someone's coming in new to Hyperledger, there's nothing right now that indicates the health, you know, and this gets into the other conversation about the health of the products that, you know, would steer people, you know, towards one project or another based on the community health. So I agree with you on that, Mark. And I think we should defer that part because, you know, I have on the agenda discussion of maturity level and I think it touches on this, you know, the members I made, we heard civil people talk about the confusion about the greenhouse, you know, it's very hard for people to know what's going on. And so clearly we haven't at least to do, you know, at least to figure out how to better communicate what's going on in the project so that people who have no background come in there. I wouldn't want to disgrace people from embarking and using borough, but I would want them to know, you know, what's going on so they have the right set of expectations. But you don't want to know, to have these people come in and they think this is a full-on project with a lot of people supporting it and they find themselves alone. That's bad. But we have to somehow manage to focus, you know, to communicate this kind of stuff. Tracy is on it. Yeah, so I have a question, like I know borough is used as the EVM engine for SAF, for sawtooth and for the EVM chain code. What does this mean for those sorts of integrations? You know, as kind of this slow period happens, I guess that's my question. Some other thing changes. Yeah, I mean, I think, well, like Tracy, on the fabric EVM chain code, right, as part of that project, right, that, wow, we have a separate issue outside of what Sadler's was mentioning, potentially. But, you know, as part of that, right, there were actually people related to fabric who actually are, I believe they're actually also maintainers now as well, if I remember correctly, but right before we even embarked on that on the fabric side, right, and putting it under fabric EVM chain code under the fabric moniker, we wanted to make sure that we had some people who were able to contribute and maintain that code. Now, we have a different issue as to whether those people can still contribute and maintain that code, but that's outside of Sadler's purview. Yeah, so I mean, the other thing is, I don't think it changes a huge amount on the EVM code, which has been stable for a while, and there certainly are fabric people who are proficient in that. I think Swetha's on the call. She's worked in that code. So that's not really, the relative amount of effort on that was really mostly maintenance. I think there are some EIP, some Ethereum improvement program changes that are yet to make it in. So I guess that is something that could do with happening, but the feature work was always elsewhere, really with Burrow. So the EVM remains fairly stable and I think there's a few people who can get in there and fix issues. Yeah, the EVM, we explicitly treat that as a slower changing, a more stable part of our API because of the integrations with Seth and fabric EVM chain code. All right, anything else? I would think we have said about everything that could be said, but, so again, I mean, you know, back to my statement earlier, what that means still is that for now, it's not like we're going to take any actions against Burrow, you know, I don't mean that in a negative way, just, you know, we are leaving it alone. We have acknowledged that, you know, we can't expect much activity for the next quarter and that's okay. All right, so then there are two issues. The first one, I wanted to see where we stand. It's this issue of, you know, rollover of projects tied to a single other project. So we discussed it a few times. I tried to assess whether there was interest for this. You know, when I asked, we literally had a vote on this, whether we should investigate, you know, developing a proposal for this, only Dan and Chris were against it. Some people were in support, a lot of people were like, well, I'm not sure. So we decided to move forward with it. And after that, there was a lot of discussion on the mailing list. Transact was targeted, which was never my intent. You know, I didn't think, you know, Transact should be singled out. Turns out that Transact that other users, even outside Hyperledger, so it wouldn't even be candidate for this policy if we had one. But I want to know whether there's still appetite to work on this or we should just shelve it. And that's it. When, you know, we can decide to shelve it now, leave it now, and there's a new TSC that's going to come. They can decide whether they want to carry on with this or shelve it themselves. You know, it's up to us. But I would figure it, you know, as part of the end of this term of the TSC, it'd be nice to clean the plate and see where we stand at least on the issues we have. So what do people think? This is Nathan. I still like this policy because it doesn't tell us anything about what the answer would be, but it gives us a trigger as the TSC to ask the question. And the hope is that that helps the projects recruit and support more than one platform if that is their original intent. And if, you know, that's not working out, we can help them find the place that will help them work better and work faster. I don't think there's any project that would say I don't want to be rolled into another project where we would forcefully roll them into the other project. It's really just a way for us to say, is the intent being met and if it's not being met, would we be better off in a different place? And then we have that conversation and move accordingly. All right, so we have at least one more who's ever continuing to work on this. Anyone else? I'm going to say what Nathan said. Man, that was well put, Nathan. I agree with everything you said. Okay. Who else? Chris. I also agree with where anything Nathan said. I think this is the right thing, just, it's a nudge, right? You guys should talk. We don't predetermine the outcome and we should respect their decision. Okay. Anyone else? I don't know if we needed a separate policy for this or if it should be the general policy that at every milestone period for a project that there's some assessment of the charter for that project, because it could be that the scope of the project in some other dimension is not being addressed or they're addressing some new scope that should be acknowledged. Interesting thought, then. Could you tease that out a little bit, Dan? Are you saying like every so often there's a gate or something? Yeah, so right now the main gates are just the, incubation to active, those kind of things, which we don't have many of. Otherwise we've got the quarterly reports is the time to do some other lightweight assessment of whether a project is addressing its scope or its charter. Sure, so you're proposing adding like additional gates or just making it more explicit that if your scope has changed, we need to reassess the project as a whole? Yeah, so I think within the review from going from incubation to active, at one point at least we had some text in there about is the project substantially fulfilling its charter scope. I think that text is still in there and have to go look. And so it seems like this would fall under that. Yeah, so Dan's point is we could, instead of focusing primarily on this notion that some project has set the expectation or the goal to support or to be platform neutral, we could look at it more broadly. Maybe we should look at the charter and say, hey, is there anything where they are at odd with the initial charter? And that would be one possible thing that could be looked at in that context, but it doesn't have to be limited to that. Okay, Angelo. Yeah, I was thinking, what happens if this, first of all, let me tell you that I agreed last time. So I still agree with this policy, but I was thinking now, what happens if this project for some reason is not used inside Hyperledger, but it's very used outside? I mean, for me it would be, it's still at that point say, okay, if you're so used outside, maybe there's an issue with the project in Hyperledger, but second, maybe you still deserve to be part of the ecosystem. I know, but I absolutely, I believe there is some wording in that proposal that addresses that very case. I don't know where it is. But I think you actually say, are effectively tied to a single other project, right? I think that that maybe I'm talking about that in outside. See, but Angelo, the last sentence of the first paragraph says, being tied to a single other project within Hyperledger and beyond. That's what's meant outside of Hyperledger. And beyond, okay, so maybe I missed that, okay, cool. Well, maybe it should be better phrased, I don't know, but that was my idea was like, I agree with you that if there's a project that doesn't have any other uses and other projects outside of Hyperledger, but it's very popular outside of Hyperledger, we don't want to kill it for sure. And then I'm fine. And in fact, we wouldn't be able to roll it into another project. There's nothing to roll it in anyway. So I think that's, you know, this was really more the example of a project, you know, I'll take Explorer for better and for worse, you know, it's like Explorer needs to post fabric and then at some point you say, you know what? It's really a piece of fabric and maybe we should fold it into fabric, you know, it's this kind of situation. So we don't have to, I don't mean for us to, you know, hash out all the details here, but what I'm hearing is there is still enough interest to keep this alive. Nobody has spoken in favor of just killing it now, saying, no, forget this. Did I miss that? Don't be shy. I'm in favor of keeping it alive. I just didn't know if we should roll it over into any other discussions. It may be useful to consider in the context of the next point of the project health point. This is also why I had tabled it off before and not even put it back on the agenda. So maybe it's good enough for now. Thank you for your input, guys. I'm satisfied with where we stand. We will keep it on the backlog. We can look at it again and, you know, with the latest input we just got, including Dan's idea of maybe making it broader. But so let's move to the last agenda item I have for today, which is this, you know, notion of project maturity matrix. And again, this came up as part of the Hyperledge member summit. They were a lot of, you know, for those who weren't there, they, the member summit this year was organized really around like, you know, I would say round tables with a lot of dialogue discussions and there was not much presentation other than I think Brian's. But, and so it really helped having a lot of discussion about the status of Hyperledge, what goes well, what doesn't go so well and what should we do? And, you know, there was specifically discussions around the greenhouse and we got quite a bit of feedback, which was quite interesting. And there was a clear signal that people, as I was saying earlier, you know, are confused about the greenhouse, the different projects and how, you know, they compare to one another not so much in terms of initially functionality, but, you know, the status again, because as we, as you guys know, the life cycle basically has this Boolean bit, right? I mean, it's more than that because we also can retire, archive the projects like Composer and all. But for the Mosspot, all the projects fall into either incubation mode or active status and there isn't much beyond that. So out of the discussion came up with this idea which, you know, again reminded me of what hot at the Broad Apple that we discussed some time ago, which was instead of trying to, you know, fold all of these different metrics you might look at into one, you know, name under one label, we could instead empower the users with, you know, more information. And this would be something we can update on a more regular basis where, you know, you could stop maybe with the exit criteria for incubation and say, okay, instead of trying to say you either, you know, pass because you meet all the criteria or you don't, maybe you can, you know, have a set of metrics similar to those but you display a level of completion among, you know, against those metrics. So that's the general idea and maybe there's a way to expose those so that when people go to the website and, you know, in a way similar to what we just talked about with Borough, right? That people can say, oh, what's that project? And on the page, they would have some signal that tell them, well, right now there isn't much activity, you know, then they would know what to expect. And it doesn't mean the projects are not worthy of anything. It's just, it just means that. And so that's the general idea. And so that's pretty much all I can say as an introduction. I mean, I'm interested to know if, you know, obviously this came up as part of the member summit, as I said, but, you know, there are no authorities, not like they are forcing us to work on this but I thought it was interesting and we should pick it up and at least look at it, consider it. And so what I'm asking for now is, you know, a bit of reaction similar to what we were talking about earlier. It's like, is that something that's of interest to people that they want to invest in this? Should, you know, this maybe somebody feels like, hey, I'm interested in putting up a proposal together, at least starting to draft and doesn't have to be a single person. Or you feel like, hey, now we've been there, done that, no, I'm not interested in doing more on that, Tracy, go ahead. Yeah, so in the TSC chat, I put a link to something that I had started back when I was a community architect, looking at different sorts of maturity aspects for projects. It didn't go anywhere because I don't think people like the red, yellow, green aspects of it, but I do think the ideas in there, even without the colors are things that we could consider. And I think now that we have the LF analytics tool that that might help provide some of that. I do think that it's, you know, like the LF analytics tool is good, but I don't think it's probably what most people would look for as an indication of whether or not they should move forward with a project or not. I think, you know, they need people probably, most people need something that's more easily digestible as they look at it. So I know that David Boswell and I had worked on this, and I like the ideas I think that David had in his, you know, the links he provided in the mailing list were probably pulled into this, maybe some other things I don't know, but it might be a place for us to start if it's easier to start from something and rip it apart. Yeah, thank you for that. And indeed, I wanted to point out David Boswell sent also an email to the list for those who haven't seen it. That is worth a read. Yeah, just to add to that, this is David. If anybody on the TSC is interested in putting this trauma in together, I'm more than happy to support. As I said on that post, I've done some maturity work with other communities before and I'm happy to support. Thank you, David. Gary? Oh, yeah, so I guess I'm trying to figure out, you know, exactly which problem we're sort of trying to solve, per se, right? Because, you know, just like Apache Software Foundation or whatever, right? I mean, we have some clear things about what it takes to become what we call it an active project. You can call it whatever you wanna call it. An accepted project within Hyperledger, right? A set of rules about code, contribute, you know, stuff, you know, specific things about, you know, Apache licensing, you're giving over all IP, blah, blah, blah, we have to do all those checks. And then, of course, you know, the big one that many people tend to get hit by, right, is, you know, community, right? Diversity, right? Diversity of maintenance, right? That is not just managed by like one company or not, right? And again, I think, you know, you look at the original intent of that was to say, so that's what it was all about, right? And that was supposed to mean that, hey, you know, Hyperledger feels pretty good that, you know, we've done some diligence in this thing, we don't think there's like one person controlling this whole thing, they can't take it all away and whatever, and that's in the, when you read the manifesto or whatever you wanna call it, right? That's what's in there. I think, so, you know, if we wanna, if there's a, so one suggestion is if somebody wants to say, hey, there should be a, you know, do we wanna have along the way a more transparent thing of the status of where somebody is towards meeting those goals, that's one option, right? You know, all the rest, right? Or kind of like, you know, to me are still, you know, somehow we are not educating people on like open source or how to look at open source, right? Because to me, right, what's the first thing, I mean, anybody who's gonna go, if I wanna go use an open source project thing, if we wanna go use it in fabric, for example, what's the first thing that we do, right? One, we scan to make sure it meets the right licenses generally, if not somebody catches us that we missed it. Two, we look at, when was the last time there was a contribution to this thing and is it active? Because that either means that if, you know, nobody's doing it, it's kind of a dead project, we probably should think twice about doing it or we have to step up and be ready to fix bugs ourselves if we're willing to take the risk to do that, right? Those are the types of things that you have to do when you're working in open source. And I, you know, I feel like, you know, half the time this is about open source education. And I still stand by this other thing of people thinking that things are products, not projects. I still think there's that big misconception. And, you know, I guess at one point we tie versions to active status and whatever and then we obviously broke that apart, which is fine, right? So to me, somebody's supposed to look at, hey, do they feel like, you know, we've put, you know, so what do we want to say? What does hyperledger feel that we should say about putting our stamp of approval on a project for people? And if somebody's saying that nobody cares that there's a single maintainer, that there's a single thing on it, then does that mean that we should change the rules of active status to not require diversity as an example? So I know I'm throwing a lot out there, but that's why this kind of, I don't disagree that we should look at this perhaps, but I don't really know what problem we're actually trying to solve because I think if people actually were educated in being able to study and look at open source, they would actually know, you know, whether or not they should think about considering using a project or not, without us calling it active or not. All right. I take your point on, you know, we should be clear on the problem we want to solve, we want to solve. And for the matter, I don't personally think we necessarily should tie that discussion to whether we want to keep or not the incubation versus active status. Maybe there's still value in having that global label, but I think for now we should really focus on this, you know, motion of matrix that to me the interest is in, you know, helping, you know, I take your point, Gary, that people could figure it out by themselves, but for a lot of people that's, you know, that would take quite a bit of time to figure out, okay, who is really active in this project? What's going on? And so if we could provide some help in figuring this out, I think that would be, you know, a good thing to do. Okay, but you could also provide a quick guide, but I take, I don't think it's actually that hard. Right? You go look in a GitHub repository, it tells you when the last commit for a project was, if it commits you can look at that and it also will tell you how many active contributors you have. I mean, this is all pretty easy. If somebody wants to just take, get stuff and present that in a different form, okay. Right, because otherwise you get into the point of making, you know, decisions for people, right? I guess if we think there's best practices for evaluating use of open source code for some less of purposes, right? Then that's, then that's, then that's, then that doesn't make sense. Like open source is not commercial quality code, right? So, you know, you have to make your own assessment of this stuff. We're not here, we're not paid by Hyperledger to fix code here, right? I still think people believe that. Well, whether commercial code is of better quality than some of the open source out there is questionable. It has nothing to do with that point, right? You said it's not commercial code, it's open source. No, no, no, I said it's not, yes, not, yeah, right. Commercial code, when you have commercial code, it comes with liabilities that you're willing to stand up to, right? If I build a commercial license, I guarantee you that I'm going to support it, I'm going to support it for this amount of time. We're not going to throw the product away. And if I do anything to violate those agreements, I'm going to give you your money back or you have the right to sue me. Open source doesn't have any of that, right? That's kind of my point, right? I think sometimes people literally think that these things are like, I guess I still think there's a misconception in a lot of things of people not understanding what these things actually are, and then also, then not understanding open source. And, you know, maybe we need some education on open source instead of trying to decide, I guess maybe I'll just throw that out there. I think maybe we need to have more details on why we have a current process and things you should look at when looking at open source or pointers to people. Anyway, I'll stop there, because I've said too much. All right, thank you. Angelou is on. Yeah, I must admit, I wouldn't, maybe following a little bit what Gary was saying, I would like to understand what would mean to have this label of maturity. So it's, I mean, I'm more interested in the implication. Once we start giving these labels, how this label should be perceived, then it's like that we are giving a quality stamp on the project, which I think it's too much to say. Can you argue a bit more on the, can we argue a bit more about the implications on this? All right, let's go to Nathan who is next, but the question is open. So I think we need to be really careful about making it be either community or product type management decisions. I think, I agree with Gary 100% that we primarily are in charge of facilitating the community and making sure that the project is interactive and it's a good place to create innovations. Open source communities have to be an interesting place to be or the work grinds to a halt. And if we just make decisions based off of releases and packaged products, we end up neglecting, I think one of the most important parts about participating at Hyperledger. But at the same time, I think we're all interested in writing the best possible code we can write. We just have to be careful that when we put those benchmarks or those hoops in place that we're not making artificial barriers and that we're not doing it at the detriment of the participation in the community itself. That the community has to come before the product concerns or we won't get a product in the first place. All right, thank you. Brian. Yeah, I think again, comparable to look at here is the core infrastructure initiative badging process. You know, the CIA badge does not guarantee that your code has no bugs, does no security defects, is secure in any way. What it guarantees is that there's a process, is that there's a capability and it is about the people and not so much the lines of code. So similarly here, I think you can evaluate the project, no matter what point the code is at, even something that's still a version 0.1 or is version 40.3 and is pretty stable and not seeing a lot of development. Both of those could achieve a high or a low score on this and that would be meaningful data to people considering using it. All right, thank you. Anybody else? So it's at least triggering quite a bit of discussion so far. So I take it this is worth entertaining a bit more. It's not so clear to me that we have a consensus as to, you know, this is something we should do and that this is well understood by everybody. You know, what is exactly we run to achieve? So it makes it a bit harder to get a proposal going, but. I didn't raise my hand, but. Go ahead, Mark. I think some of this came out of the member summit, right? Where it's hard for people who aren't as involved as we are to come in and understand, you know, help them select which projects will help them right away or what they could be involved in. And, you know, a simple Boolean active or incubation isn't necessarily helping with the maturity of the project from that perspective. And we also have a hesitancy to, you know, move people backwards on the list. So, and part of this ties into the marketing and the website, but, you know, we need to have ways to help them make decisions. You know, do we promote everything equally on the website or is there a way to indicate which of the healthier projects? And again, you know, this is on the realization that a lot of the people that come in are not going to contribute back. So, you know, we have to balance that out. But again, it's all brand related, right? If you come in and you get on a, you know, you want to start using a project that doesn't have as much support as maybe it should, but, you know, or it used to, then Hyperledger gets a bad brand in general and it could impact other projects. So, Dan, go ahead. Yeah, just a plug here that I think that this is actually a pretty broad and interesting issue. And so the Open Source Security Foundation, which I think some of us are also contributing in, they're going to be the new home for the CII badge. And so feedback from discussions like this is helpful to that community and helpful to bring any, I'm happy to bring any of this discussion over that way. But as we evolve this conversation, I think it really is sort of a broad thing. Interesting, thanks. Feel free to act as the bridge at least, you know, some kind of informal years off. All right, anything else, we're out of time, but I do think we need a bit more clarity as to whether this is primarily a communication as it's been said, right? And, you know, is that a marketing issue primarily? And, you know, again, if you go to the hyperledger.org slash use page, which presents the greenhouse, you know, there is no indication whatsoever as to the status even the active versus incubation is not present there. And, you know, is this mostly a problem trying to make this better with adding information so people have additional, you know, this kind of information at the disposal, it really available. Maybe it's certainly, it's on the page of the projects themselves, or is there more than that? And it has to do with, you know, more of the management of the projects because, you know, we are already managing this status and maybe we want to go beyond that and have this kind of, you know, we also have quarterly reports. Quite frankly, I feel like sometimes it may be we're not really achieving the goal that they were meant to achieve, which is really to give the TSE more insight as to the status of the projects and what's going on, you know, and things like, you know, the fact that transit, the discussion that happened on the TSE list, you know, about the rollover project, we learned through that, you know, the transact that a lot of other uses outside of Hyperledge was completely news to me and I'm like, why didn't I never got that out of the reports? And so there are the things like this that maybe the reports, we need to work more on the reports, I don't know. So I think there's definitely something more to dig in there. So I think for now we'll leave it at this. Some of it, you know, might be a communication issue, some maybe more and it has more to do with the way we manage our project and surface their status. So with that being said, I think I'm gonna close the call on that. I want to thank you all for joining, participating to this discussion. This discussion will be carried on forward.