 All right, so I think the first thing that we want to do is just do a quick welcome of the new TSC, so the nomination and election process ran over the last two weeks. That concluded last week that was sent out over the TSC list, but just a quick read out the new 11 TSC members are no, Ben, Chris, Dan Middleton, Greg Haskins, Hart Montgomery, Mick Bowman, Morally, Richard Brown, Sheehan Anderson, and Tamash Bloomer. So for those of you returning, welcome for the new TSC members. Really excited for you to be participating in the TSC. With that, Chris, I will hand it over to you to get things kicked off for the day. Okay, and let me echo my congratulations to the new TSC members and also my sincere thanks to the previous TSC and all their efforts. I really do appreciate it, and I think your efforts have helped us get to where we are. That's very important. So on the agenda, we have action item review and workgroup updates. I don't think we had any proposals to discuss other than the two that are listed here, which is the release taxonomy. We have an update that I put out yesterday, and I think Brian has commented on, but I haven't had a chance to look at that. And then we had a proposal from Valois on the Hyperledger Python SDK, but I think we'll have to defer that particular discussion for a week, because I think that's, we've already been through the discussion, and now it's up for a vote. And then, Brian and Todd, you have an update on discourse? On the Wiki, actually. Oh, on the Wiki. That's right, yes. Okay. All right, so is there anything else, any other agenda items that people would like to add? Covering the HackFest as well, at the beginning. Oh, I'm sorry, I missed that, yes. All right, then, Todd, you want to give us an update on the HackFest preparations? Yes, so we will have a final planning call with ABN Amro, Holland Fintech, etc., shortly after this call. From that, we'll be able to get the registration pages up in live, so we suspect that'll be up by tomorrow, if not by Monday, at the latest, so folks can start to get registered for that. But in short, what it's going to look like is, right after Syvos in Geneva, October 1st and 2nd, there will be a hackathon on that Saturday, Sunday, 1st and 2nd, more of a competition style, and then it'll move into a separate HackFest, and that will be like we've traditionally seen for Hyperledger. That'll be the third and the fourth. That'll be the technical face-to-face HackFest, like many folks have participated in over the last couple months. More details for that will be coming. Registration site will be up in the next couple days, so everyone will have all the details that they need for that. Any questions on either of those? And I just want to reinforce and encourage folks who are on the fence about it to try to make their way to the HackFest. Face-to-face is so productive. I thought coming out of the one in San Francisco a month ago was really empowering and really a lot of fun, and it'd be great to keep some of that momentum going and meet some new faces here if you haven't yet engaged this before. So any chance that you might be able to make it to Amsterdam for the third and fourth, I'd really encourage that. And if you can tack on the first and second of the Hackathon, it's a public competition, and I think it could be a lot of fun to watch, too. Yep. All right, thanks. Any questions on the Hackathon? Hi, Chris. Sorry, so this is Dave Wall. I may have just missed that, but we've totally canceled the virtual HackFest then. We're just going to go on to do the Amsterdam one next. Is that true? Yeah, there were just two people reacting to make it worthwhile, really. Okay, all right. It was very, very light week last week, so yeah. Sure, okay. Yeah, so, you know, one of the things that we were looking to do is have the white paper walk through also during that time, but if you're not going to have, if we're not going to have a virtual one in the next week or two in September, then we'll probably schedule something separately. But I can work through Todd with that. Okay. Super. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Okay, next up, Todd, could you pull up the, or maybe paste a link in the chat to the... Yeah, one moment. wiki.hyperledger.org. And actually, while he's doing that, just real quick on, even though we can't vote to accept the taxonomy, I just wanted to say, Chris, thanks for taking the, taking this the last mile and integrating it with Denver. I read it, reviewed what you've written. It looks great. I had a tiny little addition. They're not hugely consequential, but based on that, I certainly think it's ready for adoption. And I was really glad to see, by the way, that Satu Slake renumbered their releases to version 0.6 from a 1.1 to bring that into alignment. So thank you to any of the Satu Slake folks who are on the call. I want to thank you for doing that. Yeah, actually, we got on Slack, after I published this with, I think, Sean from the Satu Slake team. And their approach is slightly different. It doesn't exactly follow this approach. And then there was also a discussion around use of developer preview in the actual branch name, which I guess, you know, what I'm thinking, Brian, is we might want to wait until Mick and Dan are back. And, well, we can't take a formal vote on it anyway, but, and have a broader discussion around, around this just to make sure that everybody's on the same page. Because I think, well, certainly from a, from a Satu Slake perspective, they're, I think their approach is slightly different. And so I just think we want to make sure that we're all in line. Okay. And I guess part of this is, you know, how much variance should we allow between projects? Well, there, there is that. And, and, you know, and we could use this as guidance. But it would be nice if there were some consistency. And thanks, thanks for, for going through and, and for the minutes. I'll accept that. And then, I think, pardon me. And, and so we'll also send out a reminder to review this again before, before next week's meeting. And then hopefully we can actually get it approved. Right. Okay. So we can move on. Probably like, like, yeah, we'll skip over our proposal because there's nobody here to vote and go right to the wiki then. Right. So we have an empty wiki up at wiki.hyperledger.org. It uses opu wiki, which folks will be happy to hear since there was some demand for it. Those support markdown as a, as a tool to edit, edit a page. It is completely empty. It was set up a few days ago and I've not had a chance to go in and start adding, adding anything into it nor as part. But your Linux Foundation ID works. And we have enabled for every logged in user the ability to create new pages. So if we actually, at a point where we can test this out, where we can try adding some content, I would say, let's give folks a chance to kick the tires. See if there's any major issues with the software or the install. And then if it looks good, we can start the process of migrating content into it from the very GitHub wiki. How does, how does that sound? I think that sounds good. And I'm glad we've, we've got that sorted out, because I think we can then move off of GitHub entirely as opposed to being sort of straddling and worrying about where to put things. I think it'll be good to have it all in the same place. Let's start from the next week. It's open season. Go in, put up content. If you don't have anything, you don't have a copy, right? I, you know, but, you know, feel free to copy text over from, from GitHub or go ipso-lorm, whatever. But play around with editing it, play around with searching on it, that sort of thing. And then let's say by next Thursday, I just call if we all say this was good, then we'll, we'll start the process of migrating content over. And I think my team can help with that. You know, we certainly have an interest in high quality wiki, but we don't want to be exclusive about it. One thing I was gonna maybe suggest, Brian, is that maybe we want to actually have some editors that we could count on to sort of keep it tidy and to highlight any potential abuses and so forth. It is actually a really good point. Having at least a few people who are crazy like me and subscribe to email notifications of changes, looking at this now and want to make sure that that's actually possible, and I haven't done so, but that's something for me to check into. But having a set of people who follow all changes to wiki to watch this, but also to make sure that editors are of acceptable quality is actually pretty important. Hopefully, it would be a way to be able to watch the specific pages or specific groups of pages, but let's, let's fight it and do that until it's possible. And agree that if it doesn't have that, that's a big deal. Yeah. Okay, so let's do that. And then I would suggest that what I do is put out a call for editors and people can volunteer and then we can just look to them to sort of help keep it tidy and police. Okay. So this is just a quick question. Regarding the migration, are you expecting to have some automatic way of doing this, or do you expect to do that manually? I don't believe that there is an easy automated way that I would have confidence in to be able to migrate the content over. I've not looked at this yet, but I am led to believe that because it supports markdown, it should be easier to migrate content over. We're not talking about having to reformat pages and there's lots of feedback for them, I'm hoping. But that, there will have to be a page by page cut and paste. And that, you know, that'll be laborious when it comes to things like meeting notes. If we've been posting those, I don't know what you have to get if we have. So, you know, we'll take on some of that work on the side of my staff and the side of my team because we do want to see this, working nice from, you know, to the degree that it supports the processes that we use at Hyperledger. But what we should probably do is maintain a table somewhere of the pages that are yet to be migrated and make sure that we distribute the past during that and knock them off. So maybe a way to do this, because I know that Todd was, for instance, going to move the minutes and the TSC page. But maybe if people have content that they've been maintaining in the Wiki, if they could take some responsibility to migrate, that would maybe be one way of approaching this. That would certainly help. And we could even probably, in automated ways, to figure out who has touched the various Wiki over and just send reminder notes. And then as things flesh out, maybe sort of target date of, okay, this is when we're going to cut over and make sure that have content migrated. And then finally, we should probably, over on the GitHub side, kind of wipe back clean so it doesn't become sale. Okay. All right. So the downside of that approach is that it tends to punish the people who actually contributed already content. But I actually have been to agree with that. And I know I author civil documents in the Wiki, and I'd be happy to volunteer to migrate those. So like the cut of conducts and stuff like that. Don't do any migration yet. We'll assume between here and next week, it's open to be then. But do start, if you have time in the next week, do dive into the Wiki and start handling on it. Okay. Open to everyone else in this call. And I think that's the best approach, Brian, is to sort of play with it. And then we'll work out and we can talk about a specific strategy for how to move the pieces. Okay. Workgroup updates requirements. Oleg is not able to join. He did just send me a couple quick updates he said that the draft of the privacy section of the requirements document is now on the Wiki. And then the other update was that Oleg is currently working on the collateral management use case. And if any questions, I'll have people direct them to Oleg. Cool. Thank you. Any questions? Well, yeah, any questions send them to Oleg. Ron, architecture workgroup. Yes. So architecture workgroup, we're making slow but steady progress on our two tracks. So we're still fleshing out the architecture doc with the two sections that we have worked on and somewhat converged on. And as we go through documenting it, we are finding issues that need to be kind of discussed further before. And it's not just turning out to be just writing it down neatly. It turns out that we're raising some issues that need to be resolved as well. And on the security doc, we're just getting started with identifying the functional requirements for the identity and policy layers. And we're focusing on bootstrap and identity of what we call system entities that's validators, endorsers, and so forth. We thought we would address that first. That's a simple problem before we move on to identity in general for other transactors and so forth. That's pretty much where we are. It's slower because participation over the last few weeks has been slower as we work through the summer doldrums. That's it for me. Any questions? It has definitely been a slow summer. Yes. All right. Thanks, Ron. Any questions for Ron? Next up is Dave. Hi, yes. So for the White Paper Working Group, no, I guess our next most immediate objective is to get the paper ready for SIBOS. So I understand Hyperledger Projects is going to have a booth at SIBOS September 26th through 29th. We would like to be able to have the paper in a form where we can actually remove draft from the label. And some of the things I think leading up to being able to do that, one is that we wanted to hold a walkthrough of the paper, as I mentioned at the start of the call. And so we'll work with Todd, get an invitation out to people for that. It will fall very similar format to what we're doing here. There'll be a go to meeting. We'll go through the White Paper section by section. We're not going to be reading it straight out. Of course, we're going to just pretty much describe the purpose of each section and maybe point out a couple of key passages that kind of demonstrate that this is what we're attending each section to do, and then open it up for comment and feedback. So that's going to be important getting that walkthrough done. And another thing that I think we want to add to the document that isn't actually in there is pointing out that this is going to be a living document. Of course, this is a rapidly evolving space, this technology, and as we're making new decisions, new discoveries, even though we're removing draft from it and we want to make it clear that this is something that we expect it's going to go through multiple revisions as the technology underneath it will be evolving as well. So I think we'll see some additions to the paper describing a bit of that, maybe some expansion of the glossary. But really the key thing is making sure that we've had enough people reviewing it and giving it thoughtful consideration and an opportunity to get their thoughts, feedback into the paper so that we can again remove that draft label and have it ready for the CYBOS event. I think that's it. If anyone else on the team wants to point out anything I've forgotten, please go ahead. Otherwise, I think that's it. Great. Thanks, Dave. Any comments or questions for Dave? And Dave, I do owe you, I've actually got a marked up version that I need to just finish the last bit and then I'll shoot that off to you. Okay, great. And I'll share it with the rest of the team. Okay. Next up is Chris, but I don't think I saw him on. Okay. And then finally it's CY and that's me. And so we've, you know, obviously you've made the transition over to Garrett and we've had a few. It's been a little bit bumpy from a build perspective and I think there was a combination of things we had tried to upgrade something in the fabric that was causing some problems with the protobuf generation. But we also had some problems with mirrors. We were picking up their bad mirrors or having mirrors not reachable, which caused a number of bad builds. But I think we've worked through that and I think we have mostly green going on these days. So hopefully we're past all of that. And I think there's a couple more things we need to move over into Garrett and get married and so forth, but I'll deal with that next week when Ry gets back. But I think we're mostly past all the bumps and hopefully things will settle out. We caught a new release from the fabric yesterday, release version 6, 0.6 rather. And we'll be working over the course of the next two, three weeks prior to CYBOS to harden that so that we can have something to talk about at CYBOS. Beyond that, there's really not much more to report. No, really? I just ran a minute ago and hit that. Yeah, the mirror revert patch is ready to go, though, so we can put that in whenever... I mean, I'm assuming that fixes it, I don't know for sure. Three in a row, great. I have one last announcement before we wrap up the meeting. Yeah. Okay, so we had a grand total of one nomination for the chair for the TFC. And I think that's partly due to the fact that the current chair is actually... Those are excellent jobs at it. And I think it clearly put so much effort into it, perhaps was daunting to other people to consider the task. But I think given that there was one nomination, we can stick straight to an appointment and say thank you, Chris, for continuing if you accept, hopefully you do, as the chair of the TFC. And so we're going to select you. Well, thanks. I see a post one from Greg. And heart. Super, thanks. Thanks, everyone. Yeah, and thanks, Chris. It really is a lot of work, everyone. Chris has been balancing this with so many other commitments and it's been really excellent to work with. And I just... I'm really happy. I'm looking forward to continuing to pick up. Thank you, Chris. Cool. All right. Well, soldier on. But I guess what we can do is we can give everybody an hour back today, which is going to be, I think, a godsend to a lot of people. I know me. I had to miss much of this morning, so I have a little bit of catch-up to do. Yeah. We'll take back into high gear once summer is over and no one has that excuse. Okay. Lots of fun stuff coming up. Thanks, everyone. Talk to everyone soon. We'll talk to you all soon. Take care. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks, everyone.