 The floor is yours, Arno. Are we recording? Uh, yes. All right, very good. Thank you. All right, welcome everyone. This is the weekly TSC call, or weekly interior at least. It's been quite a while. We have had a pretty long break with the holidays and then not much activity going on. So I felt like there was no point in getting everybody on the phone to say uh, uh, but, um, at the same time, I think it's about time we get back into business and try to make progress on some of the issues we have. So without further ado, let's get started again. Welcome back everyone. So first and foremost, the antitrust policy notice that everybody needs to be aware of. This is a public meeting, but everybody needs to be aware of two things. The antitrust policy notice, as well as the hyperledger code of conduct. So if you're not familiar with this, um, please have a look. We will expect you to be aware and to act accordingly. All right. So starting with the agenda, there's first an announcement is Dan on the call. I am. Please floor is yours. Thank you. So one of the, one of the main initiatives when we set out to start the DCI working group was to try to get a data driven approach to how we, um, continue to grow the diversity, visibility and inclusiveness of the community. And so this survey is our first, um, four in to doing that. And what would be super helpful is if you can reach out, if you're a maintainer to the rest of your development community. If you are a working group lead to reach out to the rest of the participants in that working group and so on and so forth. So we really want to be able to measure as much of our community as we can. If anybody has any questions about that, feel free to ping me on chat or elsewhere. And then the, uh, the second notice there is for the global forum that there will be a mentoring session there. And if you want to help mentor new contributors, you can sign up at the links that are there. Just to clarify, the mentoring is not DCI related, is it? That is a good question. When, um, when that session was first introduced to, to the DCI working group, I was under the impression that it was diversity focused. But at the link, it doesn't actually say that. So I'm not 100% sure. If anybody else who is on that meeting, uh, recalls, if that was specifically the intent of that session. Uh, I don't know if it's diversity focused. Um, I think it's more inclusion. Is the idea with that one. Um, and trying to just welcome some newer members. Uh, the session is at on the Tuesday from 8am to 850 in case anyone is interested. Um, but I'm not, I don't think it will be diversity focused. Okay, that makes sense because I actually signed up yesterday when I saw the link, but, uh, I didn't see anything in the questionnaire that I to, to, I mean, the, the format to fill out that really indicated it would be diversity oriented. So, Yeah, I guess the way that I'm going to look at it, even if, um, if it's not specifically addressing specifically targeting diversity is that if I make myself available at that, if there's people, uh, who don't have already a strong network for how to ramp into the community, that's still an important inclusiveness, um, activity that we can do to help those people. All right, that makes sense to me. Thank you for clarifying any questions anyone. If not, then we can move on the quarterly reports. There were two that were submitted. Fabric was the only one that was actually due this week. Thank you Chris for submitting the report. Is there anything you wanted to bring up? I saw you at this point about diversity of maintainers, but I don't know if that's something you want to bring up to the TSE. Um, no, I think, I mean, you know, we made a little bit of progress in terms of it's a small, you know, 1.7 percent basically, or no, I'm sorry, it's 1.3 in this subject. Anyway, um, so it was a small thing in the right direction this time, which is good. But, uh, the other point was on maintainer diversity is that we've gone through the process. I think it's still waiting to be merged, but to basically start taking advantage of the code owner's capability that we have on GitHub now to specifically add maintainers for documentation. This does two things. First of all, it gets us to add people who have been meaningfully contributing to the documentation, but aren't they? And so we're adding some non IBM maintainers to the docs, which is good. And I think that will continue to grow as we formalize the approach to doing translations for the docs and there's a team and especially in China with TWG that's been leading a lot of that effort. And so I think this is a positive step in the right direction and we may take further steps to, you know, take advantage of code owners over time to get people who maybe have a certain level of expertise to be maintained of a portion of the code base. And it's, again, it's growing considerably so this is a positive thing. All right. Thank you. I'm eager to see the actual impact of moving to GitHub. I remember. Yeah, I think, you know, the holidays and, you know, the fact that we didn't really finish it until mid December, it'll be interesting to see the impact over the course of this quarter. Right. And of course, you know, we're going to go out. I'm sorry. No, I was saying a year or so ago we got yelled at over the internet about putting up a bar year to contributors by being on Garrett. So we'll see. So I think that's so far that's a positive and I can say we did see a small uptick and I'm hoping that there'll be even more and more. And so, you know, I'm hopeful. All right. Any questions for Chris? Yeah. Yeah, it sounds like you're kind of bearing the lead here. You've got a two coming out imminently. Yeah. Yeah. I guess in in regards to the one of the other discussions that we've got about the phrasing go back and look at the the releases. Thank you. Yeah. Is there anything that needs to be handled for that? Um, we've been working with the, you know, with Brian and Jessica and Emily on you know how to treat this. I think it's important to understand this is not like some major new super duper you know feature explosion. It's a major refactoring that involves a breaking chain. So it's I think the real noise that we hope to be made. I mean, there will be a blog post, right? And but I think that the real the real noise is going to be made around the summertime when we have the next version of our LTS because I think I noted in here we're hoping for the 2.2 in June to be the next version of our long term support stream and so that'll be the one that gets the attention because that'll probably have tokens and other stuff that's cool. Okay, great. Thanks. Is there a migration path for people on the one one dot X yes as part of the the 2.0 release we have a migration and it's actually significantly but it's a significantly improved description of how to go through the migration process from one dot for something to 2.0 so yes cool thanks anyone else all right let's keep on moving thank you Chris the other say I reviewed it too yeah I noticed that like I guess I wrote it so the other report we got for us from deep in regarding the identity working group um yeah the similar point regarding diversity specifically gender diversity that the pointed out in his report yeah depends not on so you know it's okay we can leave it at this for now and this report was only due technically next week anyway and so there are people to review and post comment whatever I saw some people already did that continue there is actually a side question that I wanted to raise we've decided a while ago to remove the requirement for working groups to have a deliverable or to have deliverables I should say to produce anything there are now discussion forums and so I was wondering do we really want to have these quarterly reports still from the working groups I thought I was going to ask I thought we had removed the requirement if you will that they have quarterly reports I thought we had already removed that but maybe it was just wishful thinking well no I think what we had well um I could be dreaming here but I thought that what we agreed was that as we move to much more of a we'll post it we'll open it up if there are any questions we'll cover them in the call but you still post a report um that's true you know we want to make sure that things are still moving along if a working group is not having any more discussions and maybe we should close it right so um but it maybe doesn't need as but I don't know I would be curious to hear from others especially the chairs of the working group whether they feel you know that still makes sense or not so we don't have to use it now but we also do have some working groups that are still putting out content right so um it is what it is yes no that's true I agree when the working group does produce like applications I think that still makes sense but if there's a working group that really functions just as some kind of discussion forum I don't know I agree with you we can keep an eye but I don't know if it requires a quality report for that matter so again we don't have to answer this now but I wanted to bring it up because as I was going through this the thought occurred to me that maybe we didn't want to do that I don't know so all right let's keep going that's fine again I'll keep the identity working group report for next week anyway maybe VP is there and wants to bring something up we can discuss it and if people have questions they can keep them for him all right so I did the upcoming reports to calendars that actually right put together thank you it's actually much easier from even what we had before so thank you for doing that and so then there is the couple of decisions really one that's important is this notion of promoted releases so we had quite extensive discussions back in December about the fact that this notion of first major release was bound to a whole bunch of events security audits and press communications press releases and whatnot and we said well maybe we need to decouple this whether it's a major release or not doesn't matter as much as whether this is a release we want to promote or not so we seem to have an agreement but we didn't have a firm proposal to vote on so Chris had taken the action item but he got busy and so I took it over and I rewrote the proposal there's an update from what we had initially and I would like now to make it a formal proposal that we effectively replace major release to promoted release this concerns both the first what we used to call first major release it's actually defined in the project life cycle and as well as subsequent releases because at some point we also had this question well what about the next one and so this really decouples the two ideas of you know whether we do this security audits we do promotions from whether it's a major release or not so that means you can have major releases independently that are not actually promoted and so that means you don't have to be in active status to have a major release so projects like explorer which is not in active status still incubation they can still have a major release and at the same time we could if we wanted have a promoted release for something that's not a major release maybe like you know Chris was just talking about fabric and we would have a fabric 2.2 LTS and maybe that's what we want to have a promoted release for so promoted releases generate everything from major release other than that which means they are subject to approval by the TSE the list of criteria that was defined for first major release and subsequent releases applies to promoted releases and I think that's about it oh yes then there was this as we were discussing this last time dino pointed out there was the use of commuter in the incubation incubation criteria admittedly it's not exactly related to the topic at hand but I didn't feel like it was worth opening a whole new issue for this so I kind of slipped that in that as part of the resolution here I want to just make the fix of changing commuter to maintainer in the incubation so is there any questions is that clear enough did I manage to capture the intent we had so with this new proposal something like explorer could declare a 1.0 release and not want it to be promoted and therefore they would not need TSE approval that's correct no other questions I have one Arno sorry so similar to Mark's question right we do have an example of a project that has gone to 1.0 didn't get approval from the TSE to do that has released a blog on hyperledger blog how do we how do we deal with that sort of situation because I feel like blogging is kind of promoting especially when it's on the hyperledger blog but yet it's not the promotion that hyperledger itself would go through where it goes off and it engages with different press press whatever you want to call them so I think what you're asking is what is considered promoted release in terms of promotion what is promotion here I guess do we have a definition for that I mean we talked specifically about what's really expensive in terms of resources and all from a project point of view so like Dave has been telling us repeatedly that security audits are expensive and for him it's useful to have a clear marker that TSE approves the expense and similarly when we get the whole marketing you know group involved with press releases and what not that's also a fairly expensive process I don't know that a simple blog post for that matter does I'd be happy to say hyperledger blog's point releases right so when fabric until like 1.4 did that get blogged I think we may even have had press releases about it remember that we do blogs for really little things too like if there's an interesting feature or there's you know something that's happening a new SDK all these other different things we do blogs for a lot of stuff blogs and tweets are not considered to be large and we don't have any benefits for the marketing team yet no I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't have these projects do blogs or that people can't write blogs about what they've done that sort of thing what I'm trying to say is that I don't think we've necessarily defined in our governance documentation if you will what we mean when we say promote it so security audit is going to be done the license scan has been done and everything has been taken through the legal committee marketing is getting involved we're dealing with the press right those are those are the things that I think mean promote it here and I just don't think we've documented what we truly mean when we say that and so that's kind of my my ask is like how do we make sure that people in the future right two years from now who come into the hyperledger greenhouse right say like hey I want to be promoted and this is what I think promoted means because I think we're seeing that a lot right now with our governance documentation is that people are interpreting it in other ways than what it was originally intended right the intent of the documentation that's why this thing that Arno has kind of slid in here of replace committer with maintainer is an issue is because people are reading our documentation our governance documentation and interpreting it but not having the context in the background of where that governance documentation is yeah I know but I agree I think you have a good point it's seems to be worth trying to explain exactly what we what we imply here in terms of promotion I mean I have to admit when I was a bit pleasing that respect maybe in the proposal because I said activities related to this which obviously kind of builds on the common or the shared currently shared knowledge but I agree kind of fails being future proof yeah and then there's the other extreme too which is if you try to get too detailed with these these governing docs then if you want to change something then you got to go through and change the governing doc again so if I don't know if there's some sort of other audit that we want to do like we we want to do pen testing or something and we're going to start including that we're going to go through and update the governing docs I think though that and I don't know if Dave is on but didn't we aren't we doing a security audit we do a security audit I don't recall anyway I think no I think well I am on oh yeah that's your question didn't we just do a security order or have we you know teed up the security audit of the 2.0 yeah we did a combined 1.4 2.0 that's right yes right yes just just check that's it I'm on it it looked good too by the way they did find some issues but they were all fixed right it's all a blur okay so how do we address Tracy's point well so I see Silona commented similarly on the page actually what does promoted me so that's a good question I mean I think so the thing is that for incubating projects right projects that are in the incubator the the language was basically that it wouldn't get a whole lot of additional sort of marketing and coverage beyond Brian and Silona and Daniel and others do to go out and speak at conferences and so forth and beyond the people that are working on the project being able to do sort of self-promotion if you will of the project through blog posts or whatever but the whole point was basically that we wanted to be reserving the you know reserving the energy you know the major energy of the organization to those projects that had gone through you know the process of building a community engaging in the community all the things that we have and so the challenge that we were going through was basically well but suppose you have a project like Explorer and maybe it hasn't met the bar of getting hundreds of people to work on it and you know diversity and so forth but they do want to sort of raise awareness if you you know through the fact that they have a 1.0 on their name to get people to actually kick the tires because a lot of times people are reluctant to engage with software that's got a more major so I don't know where you're going with this Chris but I guess I'm trying to say but it's really it's the it's when you're in incubation this is the problem when you're not in incubation I don't know if it's a problem I think that what we're just asking right now is do we need to add more specifics to the definition of the promoted release as far as they become available when you meet the criteria I agree I think that's what matters do we need to do more or do we have enough given that I agree with your point Dan that was a good one that we don't want to be too detailed either otherwise we corner ourselves so there's a little ground we need to find there but the other challenge is that if we made a new project like we did with Basu there's a press release right maybe we're just being too coy about this I don't know no but that's different the project itself they had a press release no there was an hyperelectric press release yeah yeah yeah no I understand but it was because okay now we have a new project press release but that makes sense that's not the same as the release so are we okay I think we're putting too fine a point on it it's getting promotion right are we getting to the point where I mean it sounds like trying to say when marketing should use something and not do it right I mean I think the generic point here is for a promoter release is we're doing the security scans and all of that right if marketing wants to do a blog post then that's great or a press release that's great but you know let's let marketing do marketing and let's worry about the technical aspects yeah this is Dave Hughesby I I thought that promoted always meant we were going to spend money like and significant money because the security audits aren't cheap and if we do a coordinated marketing campaign that's not cheap so I had always defined it in terms of money but I think that's that's what I was trying to get at is is I believe you're spending a lot of money on you know promoting it with press and all the other there will be increase like you know fabric there will be increase I don't I don't think there's a press release schedule but there is a blog and I'm sure IBM will make some noise about it as well yeah okay but I think but it's it but it's also it's you know it did get a review but that was sort of piled up with the 1.4 because that was a long term support release and that was also given some attention okay but I would like to get back to Dave's point because I think it's in line with what I had in mind it's really a matter of you know expenses this is a linear thing right it's not like zero or all when there is a blog post and there is some coordination for that there is some cost but it's fairly nominal compared to you know as we know the PR and all that stuff that we have seen in major releases so I think we need to we need to grab this part and then somehow capture that if it's not good enough what we have now in the text we need to edit the text to grab that because sorry sorry this is my car just have one other question on that which is if somebody wants to come to hyperloader and grab the software and use it is there a way that they can differentiate between a promoted release that's gone through all the security audits and a not promoted release no so something calls a self-wandado there are certain expectations about security and some other things related to that are we differentiating between those as part of this promoted versus major release just to mention yeah you mean past the actual promotion is there any trace left that somebody could you know they looked at the repo they could see exactly well we haven't discussed this so I say for now there is not but it's an interesting idea I agree maybe we'll have to start badging releases with ones that have been security audited I think this would go into Gary's rant about having an actual site for downloading releases but since we don't have that yet we probably don't need to include it in this definition that's a good point then I agree since Gary's not here let's form a task force and put him in charge of it let's tell a mark said that okay can we I mean we've been talking about this for like 20 minutes I'm trying to find a way to move forward now so Arno I think to me I feel like if we just put a definition for promoted release it says it's a release that will have hyperledger resources people in cash put towards it for doing things like security audits like overview and marketing you can see that in the TSC chat if you great how does that work for staff people so if somebody comes to you and says hey we need to spend money to get an audit or we want to do some promotion does that sound clear from what Tracy just said or would you need to create any sort of awkward situation the security money when the TSC agrees that this is going to be a big upcoming release and approve it then I spend the money yeah I mean this seems pretty straightforward right if you want to have a release activity that spends a bunch of money you have to get TSC approval okay so back to Tracy's point though she suggested we define a promoted release does everybody see the TSC channel what she wrote there I'm happy with what she proposes so I cannot see it so it is promoted release would be defined as having hyperledger resources people in cash put towards it for doing things like security audits legal review and marketing sounds perfect good job Tracy I think we could also add in there development of educational materials because I think we're moving in a direction of hiring people with videos I could be wrong though you have to check with Salona first well right and there's also the certification stuff too okay but now we're falling into what Dan was warning us against right it's like if we this I don't know that this needs to be exhaustive it's to give an idea of what we're talking about which clearly goes beyond just having a simple block post for one thing okay I'm good yeah but again doing things like so it doesn't mean but I'm also mindful of what Mark was saying which is let marketing be marketing right let them decide what they think they want to make noise about what we're really saying here is that if we're going to spend money on a security audit we probably should run it by the TSC to see is this a reasonable ask right and you know are we doing the security audit just for get some shiggles or you know is it coming for an upcoming major release okay that makes sense right if it's the latter and so we're making a technical decision on you know should we do that do we spend money on doing you know a license audit same thing we're paying a lawyer to do that investing in running some jobs to get that done yeah so she so if you're watching the chat it reads now for security audits legal review marketing and other expensive items and so if there's any questions from hyper ledger staff whether they should be doing something for a project then they can probably rely on their exact management right let me ask you this right so we have certification for sawtooth and fabric administrators and and developers I guess that was never run by the TSC to my knowledge are we now saying that the staff should come to the TSC to say should we have certification for project XYZ I have never formally asked the TSC in a meeting and say thank you I'm not getting audio of somebody speaking yeah Dave was cutting out I mean we are a technical steering committee not a governing body right in that sense yes the idea of this is that we are evaluating whether something is up to the open source standards that we've set that we want to the rest of the machinery whether that's marketing machinery or technical machinery and I think we're all in agreement on that's the general idea here so it's a matter of do we have documentation clear enough to say what becomes available at this milestone and that's probably mostly for dealing with the communication between a maintainer and staff to go ask for some resource that wouldn't be appropriate at that level of their life cycle so rather than trying to live edit this in these circular discussions maybe we can just take an action to update the proposal with some specific language about this idea of the resources we'll go on that next time sounds good to me say that again Dan what do you want to do which is update the proposal for next session with the wording about resources and then we can avoid some of the circular verbal discussion that we're having right now yeah can't we just do that though and say hey we propose the you know let's vote on the proposal with the amendments proposed by Tracy on the channel we can even edit this is a wiki page yeah it just usually takes a few minutes to wordsmith things right yeah we have nothing else on the agenda really so personally I would but it's fine we can postpone to next week there's no rush either so but do we agree with what Tracy proposed then because last comments made me wonder I'm fine with what she proposed as long as it's clear that this is not an exhaustive listen there can be other things I don't want to have to come back in discussion again when we decide we're going to add some other kind of security audit or check or something just no I think the other I mean I still think we need to and maybe we need Brian on or you know I don't know if you can bring in but does this mean that the staff has to come to the TSC to ask permission to do things like orders a security audit no this means that it should be implicit when we vote a project into that life cycle stage yeah I think I commented on this in chat that like will for a non-provided release does not mean will not have for non-provided release so if the you know if the staff or somebody wants to do something for a non-provided release then you know they can you know marketing can be marketing if something is in dire need of a security audit you know that can happen that makes sense so we're saying if not I think we're back to buzzing we're back to what I'm a little bit unclear on the whole process here does somebody say I want to do a promoted release and then bring it forward as a formal request before anything happens around it or yeah so this is the same thing that we've had except we're switching the words you could have a security audit that doesn't have to go through this I'm confused the the intent of this proposal is that we've had this first major release clause in the life cycle and their recognition that was outside of Simfer and so let's switch that to be a promoted release and let's try to get a little bit more concrete about the resources that are entailed in a promoted release but that doesn't mean there cannot be other kind of promotion done outside of that but maybe that's confusing to talk about right now so exceptional things can still be exceptional things but the regular process is if you've got a project that is at a major life cycle stage and you think it's ready for all these things that we're talking about with hyperlegia branding and the other things then it comes to the TSC we evaluate it make sure that it's up to snuff and then it's either green lighted or it's not yeah I think we should take it to the list yeah because it's actually a two-step process right if I want to go for a promoted release I have to inform the TSC and discuss it there then we go off and spend the money to do a security audit and stuff and I would imagine depending on the results of the security audit the TSC would then vote to officially bless it if you will right I don't you guys can hear me can you guys hear me yes okay so I have never formally come to the TSC to ask for approval for security audits it's always been sort of a census acclimation where I email a few people it's like fabric 2.0 is coming up we're going to take it to the TSC to approve so hear about it and I ask around yes yes is from TSC members but it's not a formal ask and vote so if you guys are changing the process I'm okay with it I'm just letting you know that's how it's always done to happen so far and there have been no mistakes no audits of things that weren't approved I know that Brian likes us to do the audits for the official release so the task before me is to queue up the audit so that they complete and are resolved just about the time the release goes out that's all I want to say these touches I think the question of how we implement this notion of promoted release I mean how strict we are which step do people have to go through I don't expect marketing to come and ask us permission to do whatever they want to by the way exactly that's kind of what I was trying to get at I think we should take it to the list because I'm I think we're just confusing a lot of different things and I can appreciate that it has to do with we have these sort of stages but the whole point of the first major release was the first major release after you've been active not and so now we're trying to finesse it by saying well but hyperlaser Basu came in and then we make them active and then they'll say I think they're on like 1.3 or 4 presently and then they say 1.5 is their first major release it's the one that we get that they go through all the rigmarole yes right but they're also active right and I think it's again I think that the criteria is we've gone to the thing to say yes this is active it's got a community it's using the CI and all the things that we were expecting for a project to go active and that's the bar to cross for and now you go out with a major release right and so I think we're just trying to finesse it but again do we want to do everyone that way and I think it just gets a little bit confusing to me I don't see this proposal as in any way changing the criteria around the release this is just changing the name first major to first promoted and then this additional detail about that's not what it says in the thing it says promoted first or subsequent yes we had discussion when we spoke about on this matter last year that there is every time you were going to do like a 2.0 or some other major promoted release that we wanted to make sure that the software was still at the same community standards alright well I think it's clear we're not ready to vote on this anyway because we need to figure all this out so let's table it for now I think people should let it sink in a little bit and then look at the wiki page and please let's continue this discussion there so that hopefully we can sort it out maybe in the few minutes we have left we can talk about the next proposal which I would hope is easy but maybe not I mean so it's kind of like of course I was kind of expecting we would approve this one and then the next one would become a slam dunk maybe I don't know if it's easy to do now that we have not resolved the first one but we had this separate question of whether we should forego the active state requirement for first major release and that was at the time I had thought that we would introduce this notion of promoted release in addition to the major release but then the discussion led us to say no we don't want to add this we just want to replace first major release by first promoted release and so on and in that context I don't think I mean we all agreed that those new promoted releases with all the caveat of what we just talked about now we would still require active status so I wanted to propose that we abandoned this idea of foregoing active state requirement for first major release slash promoted release I agree does anybody disagree with that who is still there yeah I mean I think if we're saying what's the couple actors from first promoted release so let me try I'm actually proposing to vote on exactly what's written on the agenda to abandon the proposal to forego active state requirement for first major release I think we should and I will vote against that is that what you're asking well I know this would come out it was the same last time it was the same last time the proposal is to abandon it so I don't want you to vote against it but we can do it the other way if you prefer vote how it's written and I just want to be clear I'm not in support of it so I'm going to vote against it so I'm not clear exactly if I vote yes what am I saying you are voting to forego the active state requirement that means that you don't care if something is an active project at the time that it goes for promoted release what will become called a promoted release yeah so we're voting no on abandoning the active requirement that's right let's do it that way vote no on proposition so if we vote no on abandoning this proposal we're going to keep the proposal we vote no step back a minute just guys let me try the proposal is to forego active state requirements for first major release I want to have a vote yeah so let's have a vote on exactly those words for go active requirement for first major release okay so this will be a roll call vote no I'd like I think there is no issue there we're just going to agree so simple does anybody want to forego the active state requirements for first major release yes I want to sorry somebody spoke up yeah it's mark I said I want to not require things to be active state for first major release okay so we have one vote in favor anybody else I didn't hear a second to bringing it to the floor I'll second it okay so we got one vote in favor anybody wants to abstain I'm going to abstain because I don't know if this is for first major release or for promoted release sorry for no change right now for for promoted release so we can only it doesn't make a difference guys because if eventually we rename first major release to promoted release it'll apply equally to that that's the idea I'm going to abstain okay we have one in favor one abstain can I assume everybody else is against this no I mean I don't know okay anybody else who says no how do we say do that I Dan votes no Nathan votes no Hart votes no Swetha votes no Anjo votes no that's what I meant everybody else is voting no okay Troy I haven't heard you but I assume you vote no oh sorry I said no okay thank you I vote no as well alright so the proposal is therefore rejected thank you we can close it alright we're basically out of time so I'm going to close the call on this as I was saying what that means to me is that this will apply to promoted release if we ever get to resolution and replacing major releases by promoted releases that's all so just a comment can we try to get clarity via email on the text we like before the meeting I think it's probably better if we you know discussing like big ideas is great for meetings but like we're not efficiently spending our time if we're discussing like how to word something that we can definitely do that by email if we're all in agreement on email we should vote no I agree email or the wiki page whatever should I always encourage discussion offline it's much easier if we have a pretty good understanding of what people are willing to agreeing to alright let's close on these guys it took longer than expected but so be it thank you for joining we'll talk again next week bye thanks