 Hello everyone. Welcome to the TSE weekly call. I only see very well-known names in the list of participants. So it's a pretty small crew, you're all familiar with the NLATRAS policy and the Code of Conduct. So I will just zip through this and get straight to the agenda, the announcements. Right, I will leave you the honor of reminding everybody about the newsletter. Sure, we have the newsletter going out every week and we're thirsty for content. Please, please, please help us out. And I don't see Helen. Oh, there's Helen, do you want to address the last two points, sir? Sure. So, sorry, I don't see the Hyperlegical Global Forum Project Overview AMAs as part of the agenda. I don't know, I didn't put that one in there. Just really quickly, Stangella, if you are a maintainer or a leader in a project, you should have received an email from Karen and Tony on our team. She's not here right now. We would like to make sure that every project has an opportunity to have, if you haven't submitted a talk already and got accepted and all that great stuff, that you have a slot in our demo theater for a five minute demo with Q&A, AMA style. So if you have not received that email or you would like to raise your hand for your specific project, please let myself, Ry, Karen, or David, anybody on staff know. Thank you. All right. Thank you. And then, yeah, last question. Sure. So the third item there is, we are coming down to the days, the weeks until Global Forum and still looking to get sort of some community traction in terms of just getting the word out, we're hoping to kind of extend the bubble a little bit in terms of participation and attendees. The beauty of this being a virtual event is that we can reach people in different time zones. There's content in different time zones. It's a really great opportunity to maybe grab individuals who are in your network and all of your networks to join us at Global Forum this year. And so there's a click-to-tweet here that if I would just encourage you all to utilize to help get the word out in your networks, get individuals who might be in different time zones, different countries, different continents, and just help us spread the word. So that is the click-to-tweet. Please consider clicking it. Thank you. Sure. Thank you, Alain. All right. With that being taken care of, well, is there any other announcements anybody wants to make? If not, we can move on to the quarterly reports. So we had the SO2 report already posted last week, but it was just like barely before the meeting. So I put it back on the agenda before the call. I looked again. It seemed like most people have now reviewed the document and nobody has raised any questions or concerns, but I will ask formally now if there's anything that anybody wants to say. There was a comment that Arun pointed out. You know, they did bring some feedback regarding Ripple Inter, and I had the comment saying, yeah, all PRs welcome. It's great to give feedback. It's even better if people make the effort to suggest changes to the Ripple Inter config file. But it is still good. I don't mean to disregard the comments. It's still good anyway. Otherwise, thanks to Arun. Thank you again. I mean, seriously, Arun reached out to the explorers team, at least some of them in India, and they have actually put together a report. It was just posted. I added it to the agenda. I don't know how many people had the chance to look at it. Good news is they seem to be doing actually quite well, which is, you know, again, we had looked at the activities showed that they were not dead by any means, and they seem to be doing just fine. So I don't think there is any concern. It's good that we managed to get a report. I'll put it again next week on the agenda so that if people have another chance to look at it yet, they're not, you know, stolen the opportunity to raise concerns on the call if they have any. And so with that done, I think there was interestingly enough, the update calendar didn't call for any updates. I mean, any report for this week specifically is kind of interesting. But so I did try during the realignment to get all of like the, I tried to align a bunch of reports so that it was less onerous for them to be filed. And we do end up with two weeks in a year where there aren't any there due because I combined them. So yeah, but that's cool. I mean, I don't mean to complain about it. I think it's good that it also gives people a chance to catch up. So not bad at all. All right. Otherwise, when it comes to discussion items, we only have two. The first one comes from Arun, who put up together a new site and wanted to tell us about it. So Arun, the floor is yours. Hey, thank you. Thanks Arun. So this particular website which you see over here is not generated through, I mean, it's not generated through web services and nice react application. It's rather being served from GitHub, the markdown files. And if we remember a few days ago, there were charts around, hey, how do we put up good first issues or probably how do we list them all under one place? How do we filter them, make it available for somebody to go and start looking into. So if you go to this website, yeah, this is the repository which Rai is now showing up that he created, thanks to Rai, that he created a new organization all together to put up these code bases. And we have very good contributors or interested people within India who are willing to help out and getting this done. So basically, it has markdown files, which is being served as a web page, which we see right now. And these markdown files are being dynamically generated with a plain, simple go code, which keeps running through GitHub actions. And so there are a few issues, the formatting and there were a few escape characters that we need to skip. Those need to be handled further. So we welcome feedback on further improving. In fact, we welcome contributions on improving this. If it all goes fine, then this should be a place to go for somebody to get started. If there are new developers, then they can land here and they will get to know everything about a specific project or latest happenings on a specific project. So right now it is pulling in issues which have these tags, good first issues and help wanted kind of tags. And it also pulls in PRs, which are happening on latest PRs, in the sense like PRs which are raised in the last seven days. And it also tracks releases from different projects in the last 30 days. We can customize this on the way we want. And if you feel like something else can be done over here, feel free to raise an issue and contributions are welcome. Thank you. But so I take it that, I mean, the main drive for this is to kind of give a consolidated view on, you know, all the different. This information obviously is already out there with what this brings us is the consolidated view of all these different pieces of information that are spread around. That right? That's correct. I do have to say that somehow it was already noticed by other projects. I happen to be also involved in another Linux foundation project called LF Edge for edge computing. And I saw on Slack yesterday, somebody saying, hey, look what, you know, they are doing in Hyperledger. This is pretty cool. We should look into doing something like this. So I have, it's pretty easy for me to get the host stuff set up. So I'm pretty liberal and handing those out. And I think it's a better experience than having a GitHub.io link. And all the other LF projects should have the same thing. So if they're looking to use this, you know, you can push them to have start here, you know, dot elephant dot blah, blah, blah. Right. So reactions or reactions for our room? And one more comment I just wanted to bring up. So I mean, if you have any other organizations like LFXH who is looking out for something similar, in fact, they can reuse the same code which is available over here. It's written very generically. Right. If you can open that repository, a configuration file, it should be under, I don't remember which folder I put it under. It shouldn't be under actions probably. Oh no, I mean, there is a folder called actions in the root of repository. No. I mean, within that start here, hyperledger, there is a folder called actions. Right. So if you open any of these three files, right, so it's plain simple configuration, something like this, it's, we would be changing the name of organization and GitHub organization ID for them. Instead of hyperledger, we can, we can in fact add any number of organizations over here or change it to something else. And it works the same way as we expect. So what's the status at this point? I mean, you're not covering everything yet. Is that right? I'm sorry. So you're in the process of hiding them? No, it does a query against the GitHub API and pulls all of the repos for each org. Okay. Right. So yeah, the repo list is also queried dynamically. We just need to supply a GitHub token, which has access to read through the list of repositories. And that's it. And specify this configuration file which tells this code. Hey, these are the organizations which needs to be screened. Let's see. And is this website linked from anywhere else yet? I don't know, right? I don't know. I haven't linked it from anywhere. How people going to find it? David Boswell, have we linked it from anywhere? He's on mute. Hi, it's Bobby. I just put a link to it on the learning materials development page for when newcomers come to our meeting for developers to look at that. So it's there. Okay. So it's starting to percolate into different pages. That's good. I should really say thanks to the community which we have over here in India. It's great to have people willing to contribute. Well, feel free to add a credit section to the top page there or something to give people credit. It is there. It is. All right. Cool. Any questions? Anyone or comments? All right. Well, thank you, Arun, for doing this. Thank you for bringing it up to our attention. And quick thought on another topic which is very similar. I know we were talking about project budget criteria. And I have seen interest within, again, the same community who regularly attend our weekly calls in India. They are willing to participate. So if there are, I mean, if we have people willing to collaborate, probably that would be another way to engage people. Okay. But is there anything specific we should do on this? I'm not sure. So who is going to drive that? If we know who is going to drive that then probably creating issues over there and then sharing that repository information and then probably having a discussion board that might help. Yeah. I don't know. All right. Anything else? So otherwise, the only other thing I have on the agenda is the decision log. I mean, we went through most of it last week. We're not completely done. And I wanted to make sure we get through everything so that, you know, oh, actually I missed this. Rename and offline to dormant. I just added those two. So like just now. No wonder. Okay. Let's talk about this. Okay. The proposal was to rename end of life to dormant. And that was just part of the life cycle stuff that was going on. Two meetings ago, I think. Yeah. So that was the proposal. It's pretty straightforward. Thoughts? Well, but let's be clear. I mean, I believe the intent is to allow for projects to get out of this state. Is that correct? Right. End of life seems, well, as I said, much less final or much more final than dormant transition. Because I think if the implication is that, you know, end of life, I mean, we are moving from end of life to dormant so that it's not final. The implication is, okay, we should plan for some possibility to get out of dormant state. And then there were questions that I think were very valid raised last time this came up, kind of casually in the discussion we were discussing about the, when we're talking about the project life cycle, which had to do with determining, for instance, which other states it would go to. I mean, was it back to wherever it was before? Or, you know, does it always go back to maybe incubation? I mean, you could imagine difference in our use. Sure. We had two hands up. Tracy? Yeah, I guess I feel like the, we already have a project in end of life, right? And it was decided specifically by the maintainers that they weren't going to be supporting that anymore. I think that's very different than the request that came from Quilt, which seems like I don't want to end of life this project, but I probably won't be maintaining this in the near term future due to other responsibilities. They feel like two different sorts of states to me, and so I wouldn't probably recommend renaming end of life to dormant. On the other hand, I don't know, I really like your idea about a project that was dormant potentially going back to incubation, instead of if they were active and then dormant going back to active, because it seems like maybe that's not the right step for it to take. So, yeah, I think you had a question, Sorry. No, yeah, I wanted to know if you didn't quite say it, but are you at the same time entertaining the idea of inserting a new, adding a new dormant phase state that we could in the project? Yes, yes, a dormant state that I think could be reached from either an incubation project or an active project, I'm sorry, graduated project. All right, that's an interesting idea. It's different from the current proposal, which is to rename end of life. It is, yeah, yeah. Okay, so I literally just type this up. It's all right. Don't freak out. I mean, it's, you know, I don't think I'm freaking out. I just, like, don't look at this. Feel free to edit the wiki. And then, I know Dano raised his hand and then dropped it. Dano, if you had a question. So I was just the discussion went where I think it needed to go and that we need to pack back to a prior state. And if we're going to rename another question with Trace's comment is I wonder, do we need deprecated death? If we're going to have a dormant and a deprecated, you know, if dormant is the path to end of life, I mean, it sounds like we need to have another general discussion with a specific proposal for a new lifecycle changes as a whole, not just one one shot renaming stuff. I think we need a holistic discussion about it. Yeah. Yeah. So that's in line with what I was saying that, you know, it's not just the name of the state is also the path you follow from one state to another. And if we had a new one, where does it fit in? And how does it combine with the existing states? So for instance, Tracy was in favor of what I suggested, or maybe after dormant, they go to incubation. Tracy? Yeah, a whole bunch of people. Yeah. So I mean, I'm happy to drop a diagram of what this would look like. But I think my thought is proposal goes to incubation. Incubation can go to graduate it, dormant or deprecated, graduated can go to dormant or deprecated, dormant can go to deprecated, or back to incubation, deprecated can go to end of life. That's probably how I would draw it up. And I'm happy to draw it up and put it out there for us to discuss maybe in the next meeting, unless we actually come to some sort of conclusion here. So there is no way out of deprecated? Deprecated goes to end of life. I don't I don't know that because if we're adding dormant kind of in between the graduated and deprecated in my mind, I think you would go to dormant before you would go to like, I don't think you would jump directly to deprecate it from incubation or graduated. I mean, I guess you could. But yeah, I don't know. I guess that's the line between dormant and deprecated that you were speaking about, Dana. Yeah, because if you go to the only way to end of life is to deprecate it, that deprecated is no way out. Why do we need the end of life state? I mean, that's just been deprecated for six months. I think the difference there is that end of life. I don't know. I feel we shouldn't be bound. We the community shouldn't be bound by where we went before, right? Composer is where it is. And maybe composer is the only project that ever ends up in the end of life state. End of life itself gets end of life. So I saw that Arun and Hart had their hands up. Hart? Yeah, I guess I think these are all good ideas. I like Tracy's proposal, but we should be careful to clarify exactly what is what. So sort of my thing, like my interpretation of this was sort of dormant is we can't actively support this now, but we don't want you to discourage. We don't want to discourage you from using it if you already are or want to. And sort of deprecated is like, please don't start using this. So I think we need some kind of distinction there. And I'm also okay with having a distinction between deprecated and end of life, even if all deprecated projects end up in end of life. So a deprecated project, for instance, could be we're not supporting this. There are no new releases, but it's not like sort of fatally flawed yet. Whereas end of life could be like, there's a bug in our deprecated software, do not use it, stop using it immediately, switch to something else. So I don't know what people think, whether it's worth having this distinction or not. But there could be something there, even if all deprecated projects move to end of life. So from a personal standpoint, I would like to point out that several times, I helped people get composer up and running in some way, showing them how to do it locally, even though the images weren't published. The composer now is at such a state that it's basically impossible to get up and running unless you set up a VM that is, you know, from 1604 or whatever. Everything is broken at this point, even getting it up. So I really, there is a distinction there, end of life. It's like, it's not going to say composer's code is not useful, but it would be very hard to make it useful. So I think there is, you know, there's a purpose, there's a good reason to have a graveyard for projects. Can you click on graduated there? What does it say actually? Oh, no, deep elements. Okay, thank you. Yeah, this is one of my, this fits my recollection. There is no expectation of getting out of this other than end of life. That the second paragraph is the key one. It basically says, you know, the first one is how you get to deprecated. The second is what happens to get out. And it basically says, after six months, you're going to end off life. That's it. So there's a big difference between this and the kind of things we're talking about dormant, where obviously, there is an expectation that the project may get out of this state to go back to some kind of active status or incubation. So I think it's an interesting idea. And I'm, you know, Tracy volunteered to put a proposal together. I think it's worth entertaining. Anybody thinks it's a bad idea? She shouldn't waste her time because you're going to object violently and say no way over my dead body. But so I lowered my hand. All right. Thanks. And nobody said we should just rename end of life to dormant as it was initially proposed. Yeah, just feel free to edit. Yeah, that's fine. This is just to clarify. I mean, I want to make sure we're all in on the same page. All right. So that takes care of one of those two you added. What's the other one? Oh, yeah, I know what this is about. Cool. Go ahead. Okay, well, if you know what it's about, tell us. I mean, basically, my understanding is other projects have these long standing working groups that are focused on the contributor experience and removing barriers. I know that David Boswell had talked about that. And if you're active in a project that has that, I'd like to hear how it works operationally or no. Oh, you're asking me? No, I'm not saying I've been involved in anything like this. I just think I understood that's what you were talking about when I saw the title I realized. Gotcha. Sorry. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So my understanding is other projects have these long running working groups that meet every now and again and say, what is our pipeline? How can we make this better? And the proposal is Hyperledger could really use one. Grace, thank you. So we don't have this explicitly in Facebook, but I think it's a good idea. My one question is, how is this different than the learning materials working group? Or would we make sure that they would be closely aligned or working together or just not duplicating efforts? Because I know Bobby and that working group has done such a good job with a lot of these things. So is that potentially the proposal to make sure that we're, you know, create the contributor experience working group but work closely with the learning development one? I think that they are closely aligned. For instance, David Boswell and I are working with a designer right now to redo the wiki to make it better. I see that Bobby has unmuted. Bobby, go ahead. Yeah, the learning materials working group is more targeted for the first time people coming in and this is more for people who are already contributing. Is that correct? It could be. I mean, so there's a lot to this. There are a lot of issues that we'd like to address. How, you know, DCO signoffs. I created a video for like how to use GitHub desktop on Windows with Visual Studio Code to do the to do the DCO stuff for documentation. That whole process I feel needs to be redone and that's way beyond a first contribution problem. That's a how do we do documentation in a GitHub world problem. So those are the types of issues that I would like to have broader participation on fixing. And again, the learning materials working group would love to help out with this and, you know, house it on our site so that when people come, you know, just like we did the GitHub start here right now on our homepage, we can do something for developers, you know, contributing or and getting involved in the community, you know, correctly. So whatever you need from support from us, let us know. Yeah, it sounds like the learning material working group could be a vehicle towards that to kind of channel people towards this new group. I mean, the only concern I have is, you know, this only works if people are participating in it obviously. And we would need somehow to figure out whether they will be enough people interested in participating to make it worthwhile. I do think it's interesting. Don't get me wrong. I just mean to cast doubt about its usefulness. Sure. I again, this is we don't need to make a decision on this today. Let me come back with a more fully fleshed thing next week, perhaps. Okay. And I can bring it up in the call on Monday to see if any but any of the members of the learning materials working group would be interested in taking a leadership role in this. That'd be awesome. All right. So other than that, I'm trying to remember where we left at last time, we went over the long term agenda framing the DCO pseudonyms is pending, still waiting for the legal input, I believe. And the move has a conflict right now. So every four weeks, Brian isn't going to be here representing himself. So I can't give us update on that. No, but that's okay. But so I was hoping we would be able to close some of these that I think relate to other things and that do not need to be listed in our decision log as something that needs to be addressed. And I have to admit we didn't close quite as many as I was hoping. And so can we have another look? So the DCO staff, both of them, the DCO related ones are pending come back. So we initially that the badging is pending this experimentation and the possibility of having some automation. So I think what this leaves us is the top level product has not made its charter goal. I think we talked about this and said, I would think we should either withdraw or close it without any kind of resolution in the sense that it talks about, we said we have different kind of reviews in place already. There is the quarterly project report and there is the badging. Admittedly, none of them target this specific point. So is this something we want to do something about or do we want to give up and say, well, whatever, we're not going to solve this. How do people feel about this? And it came up as part of the, like it says, it came up from the discussion we were having on the wall over. I saw some head hot. Is this historically been a problem for us? Well, it's it's what kind of motivated the discussion on the wall over, or even though the roll over itself became very controversial. But it was this idea that like, well, you know, there was some projects became top level projects based on some expectation that never got met. And the question was like, well, if that's a problem, maybe there's another. There's something else we need to do. Yeah, so I thought this sort of got tied in with the greenhouse refactoring, right? That's sort of like, you know, whether something is a top level project or a sub project, you know, probably doesn't impact development or day to day things too much. It's just more about marketing. I thought that was the general consensus we had is that it was more of a sort of marketing issue that we could address this by sort of clarifying the greenhouse or clarifying the relationship between projects. Am I wrong here? Is this what everyone remembered? So I don't know that we we spelled it out in that way, but I like the I like the gist of it, the way you put it. And maybe we should clarify. I mean, you and I are part of the task force on the greenhouse website revamping. I mean, this is one thing we talked about in the task force group run by Ellen is that, you know, we should have a more dynamic website, and it would allow displaying all the different projects in different ways with different kind of views. And we did talk about how it should somehow represent the dependencies between the projects so that, for instance, if Explorer only runs with fabric, this should be surfaced in some way. And so, you know, that's where we left it. So maybe indeed, this kind of address the main issue that was at the root of this whole thing, because initially I know that I for one was I wasn't exactly the only one. But, you know, I was concerned by the fact that a lot of people are confused by the representation we give of the different projects on the page with the greenhouse, which seems to imply there is no dependencies between the different projects, even when they are. So that said, yeah, I agree. And I think, I mean, I know Dano had the suggestion of even we, you know, potentially designate some projects, premier projects. And, you know, and that that can impact sort of marketing or, or greenhouse presentation as well. You know, because it doesn't make sense to sort of, you know, present something like fabric on the same footing as something like Explorer or Ursa, right? Right. So one thing that I did with David was took the main page of the wiki where you land and separate the graduated projects from the incubating projects. So the list is that was one easy way to slice this data. But I like the idea of a premier project that sounds cool. We appreciated you promoting cactus, right? Yeah, sorry about that. But so, okay, so back to the decision log, which I'm trying to clean up, can we agree then we don't, we're not going to do anything specific about this other than what we talked about. This will be addressed in some different ways of the root issue, which was the confusion and the lack of clarity about the dependencies and all that. And we are not going to do anything specific about projects not meeting their initial charter goal. Does anybody intend to address this issue? That's why I bring this up, because I feel like we have some issues and decision log that nobody seems to care to do anything about them. And then I'm like, well, we might as well just close them if we're not going to work on that ever. So let me propose to just close this. With that resolution, basically. Oh, I don't know if the right thing to do is to call it withdrawn, but Arun. So, I mean, it's fine we can withdraw this, but I see a concern over here that somebody could come in and propose a project with a charter that could attract many people and then change it all by themselves, right? Yes, projects might morph into something quite different from what they had set themselves for, as I was just talking about. But so do we need, I mean, so that might be a resolution could be, sorry, maybe a resolution could be something like when the charter goal is changed, bring it back for the discussion and get it through the like an approval process. I mean, even if it is not approval process, but at least get it through a documentation process on the change charter goal. But I don't think anybody is misleading anyone in the sense that, you know, it's not like explorers claiming to support more than fabric. If you go to the explorer documentation, they'll say exactly what they support. And the challenge we have in what you're talking about is at the same time, I'm sure they're still open to supporting more if people are willing to contribute to support other frameworks. Tracy has been waiting. That's good, Tracy. No, I mean, I think that's why this was originally created, right, is for projects like Explorer that their original charter said they were going to be an explorer for any of the frameworks that we had. And they haven't done that through probably no fault of their own, right, but just nobody coming in and providing the support for the other frameworks. I think there is an interesting question that Arun is trying to get at, which is what happens if somebody comes in and says they're going to create this new blockchain great thing, whatever it is, right. And then all of a sudden their charter is I'm no longer focused on blockchain and focused on something that isn't even in the hyper ledger arena. And because the main hinders are okay with that, they go that direction, we now have no kind of recourse other than to try and have a conversation with them, right, to say like, hey, this doesn't meet the charter of hyper ledger, let alone your original charter that you brought to us. How do we how do we deal with something like that, right, and maybe it's not the TSC's place to have to deal with that, maybe it's staff or governing board or whatever. But I do think that there is that put to no concern that that needs to be thought through. Yeah, it's a bit extreme, but I agree. I wanted to make it extreme. But it is an interesting to use case indeed is like, okay, what if that were to happen? But in terms of mechanism to detect it, because this is what this issue was about, you know, is like, well, the review, right, the quarterly report hopefully would allow us at TSC to detect a way, you know, they were chartered to do an explore and now they are doing something completely different. That's not even, you know, fitting with the hyper ledger mission. In terms of detecting it, we that should do it, right? Maybe. I don't know. Sometimes the project reports are written in such a way that you really don't understand what's happening underneath. Right. I mean, because you could be part of a project and realize what's going on and read the project report and go, oh, that's kind of a different story or a different take on what's really happening underneath. Right. I think that yes, it's possible we might detect it, but I don't think it's a given that we will detect it. All right. So are you saying we need to keep this open and somebody? No, no, no, I'm not saying that I'm just saying that we do need to maybe understand from kind of hyper ledger Linux foundation perspective what their thoughts are around something like that. And maybe the process that we would go through, I really don't think it's a TSC issue in the case of somebody's gun, you know, AWOL and completely off the rails. I think maybe, yeah, we can detect it, but I don't think it's our responsibility to to take action, if you will. Well, I mean, I think, I mean, of course, we could say, you know, something like, I mean, I would expect us to react and, you know, make sure the staff gets involved in like somebody like Brian step in and say, guys, what are you doing? Right. And it did maybe escalate with the governing board if needed. But I don't know if we need to have some process policy out there that says this is what we're going to do if that were to happen. Nathan? Well, I think part of what we need here is we're very hesitant, because we don't want to step on the toes of the maintainers, we want to feel like we're facilitating and not dictating. But at the same time, it's okay that the technical steering committee is actually steering in these cases. I mean, if something really isn't meeting its chartered requirements, and we think that there's something better we can suggest, really, that is our role as the TSC to be suggesting those things and having those discussions. It doesn't presume a certain outcome. But I think it's sad if we don't presume that at least we'll actually have the conversation. Like if our project would fit much better within a framework as opposed to being a top level project, I would hope we can have that conversation in a constructive way. And not as a slight to the project, but as a way to try to make things move faster in a way to try to make things fit better together. And I know we've changed our mind about how top level projects versus sub projects and all those things work. And it's not always clear and it's not always straightforward. And I think it's okay that some of that is messy. I also definitely agree that we shouldn't have kind of generalized rules when there's only one or two specific scenarios that we're concerned about. So, you know, if we withdraw something like this, I think that's probably fine as long as we don't withdraw the idea that these conversations need to happen and then they happen sooner rather than later, they're less painful. Yeah, that makes sense. I agree. But so do you think we need to have an issue open to do we want to do anything specific? I mean, although you do what you said I agree with, and I feel like, you know, we're definitely already entitled to do all of that. And we don't necessarily need to write down any specific policy to explicitly say that. I actually think if we write down a specific policy, we'll actually get in our own way, because the policy will say we should do something when all is clearly disagree with that. That's exactly what we should do. I agree. And this is why we have these calls also is that, you know, if there was such an issue that came up, I would think, you know, this is a good opportunity for us to talk about it and say, okay, what do we do here? And hopefully we could, you know, agree on a path forward. Again, without having written a policy for that. I'm still trying to close this. So I will going to ask because we're going to be out of time before we know. And does anybody want to keep this alive? Or can we close it? Do we want to close it writing something or we just close it? There were too many questions. I thought so a little bit. I would take the position that you proposed it, you wrote it, right? If you are no, want to make it withdrawn, I don't feel that you would need a vote to withdraw your own proposal. But I'm not a member of the TSC. No, but the, well, you know, the problem is I didn't raise it for myself, right? I raised it because I felt like this was trying to capture something that came out of the discussion. And so in that respect, maybe, you know, especially as chair, I feel like, okay, my responsibility is towards the group. So, okay, I, but I think it's a good way to make progress here. It's like, okay, unless somebody objects now, I will withdraw it. Daniel. With drawing spine, I was thinking that, you know, every single proposal should have a champion. And if there is no champion, it should be closed as a matter of course. So if you're withdrawing from it, no one picks it up. It should be withdrawn in my take. So this is very true. And I was going to tell you, I mean, it's very much in line with what I was thinking is like, if anybody objects to me closing it or withdrawing it, I'm going to say, okay, the burden is on you to come up with a proposal. So you've been warned. All right, I think we can leave it at that then. Thank you. I will withdraw it. I think there was another one similar. Yeah, so the long-term agenda, we can look at it again. We talked a little bit about it last time. And some people felt, well, we're already doing this kind of that spot of our mission. I don't know that we need to do anything specific about this. The person who raised it, opened it was Dan, who is not around anymore. I think, you know, I actually looked at it again earlier in preparation to this meeting. And it's like, yeah, if you follow, and even I went to the architecture working group notes, it all says things, it's most like observations. But at the end of the day, it's like, yeah, that's what we observe. That's just the way it is. And even in the comments section, there's two comments, one from Meek, one from Mark, and they kind of disagree. So I don't know that there's a way forward on this. And that was always my concern. I think it led to, it was interesting that Dan raised this because it did, you know, kind of for some interesting discussion. But I feel like this is not the kind of things you can really resolve. But Arun, you lower your hand. That was for the previous thing. I mean, I was about to object it and willing to take the burden over there. Sorry, not for this. Do you want to? Not for this, the earlier discussion. So the previous one, you don't want me to redraw it? You're going to work on something? Yeah, sure. I mean, he don't feel forced. I mean, only if you feel like you want to. Yes, so I don't feel like we're trying it because it has a few questions, which needs to be answered instead of leaving it for later. It's better we say something. Okay, so I put up some comments. This was about the charter review. Right? Okay, sounds good. I'll leave it open and basically consider it heroes now. So what about this framing long term agenda? Anybody wants to become the champion of this? Okay, hearing none, I think we're going to close it as is. Anybody objects to closing it? Okay, I don't hear anybody. You don't see any raised. So we will close it. What else do we have? I think the other one was the move I predict to explore from incubation to active, which is a long standing request, which was pushed back on. We didn't close it. We just told them was you don't meet the criteria and there was always this kind of question about whether we should keep it as is. And when they're ready, we can resurrect it or make it active again, or do we just close it and they'll reopen another one? I'd say it's been a year since the last edit. I would propose that this is withdrawn. Yeah, I think that would make sense. There should probably be at least a voice vote on that. Okay, does anybody object to this? So the proposal is to withdraw this request. Does anybody wants to abstain? Does anybody agree to withdrawing this? Say aye. It's not clear that the people who proposed this are still even contributing. Okay, that's a good piece of information. So all right, so it will be then withdrawn and closed. Thank you. Okay, that's perfect timing. We're at the end of the meeting with that kind of little success. I think we're going to close it. And we have cleaned up a little bit the decision log. The rest, I think, needs to still be there. So we'll keep the rest there. All right, some of you have some homework for the week to come. And based on that, we'll see what happens. Thank you all for joining. We'll close the call.