 recording. All right. Hello, everyone. Thank you for joining. This is the weekly TSC call. It's a public meeting. Anybody is welcome to attend and participate. There are two requirements to doing so though. The first one is to be aware and live by the antitrust policy, the notice of which is currently displayed on the Zoom client if you have it. And the other part is the code of conduct, which basically says you need to behave in a decent manner, which, you know, for short, I say contribute in a positive manner. Of course, there's a lot more to it, but you know, please make yourself knowledgeable about those two things if you're not already. With that done, we can get moving with the agenda. There is first an announcement from Brian. Brian, what is this about? For us? I don't know. Wait a minute. Who put this on the agenda? I did your request yesterday when we were talking. It wasn't meant to be a surprise. Let me put a link in chat. We have been playing around more with LF analytics, basically with analytics for the GitHub repose that apply to other sources of contributions and to kind of an aggregate picture through working with the LFIT team. And so due to a lot of hard work on RISE part, it's become useful partly thanks to him figuring out the affiliations support that we have in terms of who is employer and history and that sort of thing. But I think it's ready for folks in the TSE to take a look at and start thinking about, we don't have to talk about it here, but start thinking about how we might want to have it inform some of the conversations we have here about project health and our priorities for what we want to see these projects become. So there are things that are broken, probably. There are things that make it hard to compare apples to apples, of course, and lots more to do. But if you find bugs or things that don't seem quite right, drop a note to Rye or Dave or myself and start thinking about where and how we might want to apply this in our conversations. That's it. All right. Thank you, Brian. So, Rye, I understand you had your ways into this. Do you have anything to add so that people can easily find their ways into this and know what we are looking at? I'm not quite sure what you're saying there. Well, so I mean, from what I understand, I mean, so Brian talked about the affiliation aspect, for instance, I understand that's quite a pain to do, but you try to disambiguate some of the anonymous names and figure out who they are. I did. Different categories, I think, is worth pointing out. And by the way, people, I know one thing that it wasn't obvious to me is when you look at the dashboard, you see first all the ties with all different projects with some basic information. You have to actually, there's a link on the name of the project. It's kind of weird because it's very small area compared to the size of the tile. If you click on the tile, you get some other information. I think there was a pop up or something, but you have to click on the actual name of the project to get to the, like a deeper dive into the information related to that particular project. And then it's a bit more obvious to navigate, but the first one I found is a bit, it's kind of a hidden path. And then there are different categories in terms of affiliations, which was not obvious to me. And in particular, there is like unknown and undisclosed. I think it's worth some explanation, right? If you don't mind. No, no, it's fine. Unknown means, well, that's your default state when you come into the system. You're unknown. Undisclosed is something that I added for users that I spent some time on couldn't figure out who they were and didn't want them to keep showing up in the unknown bucket. And when you look at affiliations for a lot of this, when I was looking at someone's affiliation, whatever their link, if their email address made it obvious what an affiliation was, that was my guess, or I would look at their Github profile and see if they listed like something at the top as their employer, then I would go with that. So a lot of this is guesswork, and I'm open to changing all of the affiliations. One thing that I did want to show you is that as soon as I'm not going to type over all this crap. So this is my personal affiliation or identity management dashboard. And you see that I've used a couple email addresses. And if you've used a couple email addresses, they can be merged in this way. Then your organizational affiliation is what it says. These are time bound. So if you start and stop, your contributions for that time period will be associated with that affiliation. I think you need some more email addresses. Oh my goodness. Maybe only Gary has more because he doesn't use his own real email. I didn't realize that this was going to pick up every freaking commit I ever made. And if you see that you are in the wrong bucket, then let me know and I'll change your affiliation. I'm not going to cry. And if your email address or whatever you want listed differently, just let me know. Something just occurred to me. Hota has been saying he's concerned by people cheating the system and voting multiple times. I'm wondering whether we're looking at a possible criminal right here. Could be. You're right to be suspicious because I do both run the election and choose who gets to vote in the election. And you have many ways to vote apparently. Well, yeah. Where is our profile again? Maybe you don't have that. It says admin sign in. Is that what we need? Well, I think Chris, the problem is this was only for contributors and so you probably don't have a profile. You do have a profile, Chris. There you are. I do, I'm sure. Oh, look at how many email addresses this has. Oh my goodness. What the hell? Vote early, vote early. Well, Rye, I think you should quit your current job and start offering up forensics, getting into forensics. It's pretty good. It's my past life. I don't do that anymore. Thanks. How do you log into this? Apparently you can't. So we can't fix our own to check to see what's in it. This is, editing your own profile is coming. Your ability to edit, that's why I was saying, like if you go to the main page here and we pick, let's just go here and see or let's say last five years of Aries. Let's pick another project like fabric, which has contributions for a much longer period. You got an extra F. No, that was the percent to F. Yeah. So if we look here, I did go through and try to get the unknown contributions down to a single digit percent on every project. Unknown is down to 3 percent. Undisclosed is at 1 percent. Yeah. What is undisclosed and what is the difference between the two? Unknown is the default state undisclosed means that I spent time trying to figure out your affiliation. And I wanted to mark it for myself so that I wouldn't spend any more time next time they came around. I wanted to pick the easy fruit because I'm lazy. And I see that BM has 305 commits. I suspect that's probably IBM. That's what I think. Whenever I see. That's where you have to go through the profiles to make sure you don't have a little cut and paste error there. Oh, okay. So yeah, this is something else I wanted to show. It does show your your Docker hubs, your repos over there. This confluence is something that we're working on disambiguating. This block will be the same for all projects right now. So this is this corresponds to the wiki pages, right? Yeah. Yeah. But this is this is like for the entire hyperledger wiki. It doesn't, I haven't yet gone to the work to split it up into spaces, although it does support it. That's new support as in like last week and I was working on other stuff. So yeah, no problem. Yeah, I wanted to see. Anyway, if there's anything anyone wants to see here, just a good piece of work. Well, I only did the affiliation part. So, I mean, there must have been, I mean, what do you got like 600 people, something like that 700. Yeah. So I think this is, you know, a nice piece of information. I mean, all this information is actually readily available, but not in a digestible form, right? And so this puts all into some kind of neat form for us to look at. The question is going to be for the TSE to figure out how to leverage this information now. You know, as Brian says, hopefully we can use that to help products identify maybe areas where there could be some improvements. And, you know, so that's the question. And, you know, for now, we don't need to go much deeper into this now. I think we've got a sense of what's there. It will take some time for everyone to do their own exploration on their own time. But I think it would be good if you could think about what you think we could do with this. And we could discuss this on the next call or so and figure out, you know, some ways to use this in a productive way. I see you've also got the labs in there. That's good. Yeah, the data for the labs is filling in. It may not have been completely there yet. And I'm aware of a bug. I filed a ton of bugs on this. You can't, it doesn't matter. Play around. Let me know what you find. Oh, but so another aspect? So where would we file a bug if we found one, or if we felt we found one? You could go to support. There is a section for that. Is there? That's how I file my bugs. I'm getting there. I'm waiting for it to... So you want to go to community bridge support and then CB insights? Where do you find the help center there? I don't see this in my view. Okay. Well, maybe because you have admin support. Where's your type support? Support.LinuxFoundation. Oh, I'm sorry. Got it. Okay. So, Rye, besides playing around with this, and this looks great, by the way, what else can we as a TSC or individuals do to help you right now? Good question. Let me know what it is that you want in terms of... So I know that, like, could this do the stats for quarterly reports automatically? Right? What are the features that you want? What are the features that you need? And I know I worked with Dano yesterday to correct a bunch of affiliations. He gave me a big list of people. So if you can give me a big list of people, that would be awesome. Just let me know. And by the way, so this data is refreshed how often on a daily basis or something? A little bit more frequently than once a day. It depends on the data source. For stuff that Linux Foundation owns, it's more frequent. For stuff that we don't, it's less frequent. GitHub is about twice a day, depending. Because you can only use the tokens so much, right? Okay. Any other questions? Anyone else? All right, if none, then we're done with this. Thank you, Rai. Thank you. Thank you, Brian. Let's move on then. Oh, well, let me ask first, is there any other announcements? That's not on the agenda, but that people want to make. And Gary, I'm done with serious announcements. Okay. So let's move on. They were a bunch of quarterly reports. Actually, Transact was already there last time, but I saw Chris put some comments and not everybody had reviewed it then. I think most of the reports have now been reviewed by most of the TSC members. And so I haven't seen anything that requires some discussion now, but let me ask globally if there's anything that anyone wants to discuss now. I saw some comments and questions, but it seems like they were answered. I don't know if people want to follow up on any of this now. Okay. I take it not. All right. So then we're good. I do want to highlight that we are missing now three reports from Borough, Ares, and Explorer. If you're part of this project, please look into submitting the report. That would be appreciated. And there is the link to the calendar for what's coming next. So with that done, there is one issue which I've tried very hard to get resolved offline and failed, I'm afraid, which shows that, you know, we're not quite ready to live without these TSC calls, apparently, because even so, for something like this that I thought was pretty straightforward, we can seem to be able to get to a conclusion in a reasonable amount of time, at least. I'm not saying it could never happen, but I thought this would be done in a week. And now we are like a few weeks in and it's still not closed. And I asked people to look into it to comment and vote and pretty much, you know, there were some comments, obviously, and the page shows that, but it doesn't look like we're close to the closure. So let me try now and see if we can make progress getting there. So the issue is pretty simple. When we set up the labs, we said, well, you know, we were concerned by the possibility of, you know, the labs becoming a dumping ground for all sorts of projects that were not worth the resources we're investing into, you know, having those labs, even though it's pretty minimal, there's still some. And so we put a requirement that the proposal should be supported by a sponsor. And the role of the sponsor was very loosely defined as saying, basically, they're endorsing this and signaling that, yes, they think this is worth, you know, a lab. And so we defined which category of people could qualify, would qualify as a sponsor. And it's relatively limited to chairs of, or to maintainers for project or chairs of working groups. Specifically, we do not include SIG chairs. And I can tell you, I'm also a Stuart lab as well as a maintainer. And of course, oh, there's a member of TSC also. And then so I qualify in every possible ways. But, you know, I end up being tapped all the time. People come to me and try to get me to be their sponsor. And quite frankly, I mean, I feel like, yeah, sure, I can be the sponsor. But it doesn't seem necessarily that's the right thing to do. And especially when there are people like coming from a SIG who are trying to set up a lab, and they're being told, sorry, your chair is not good enough. You need a sponsor that's qualified. It seems a bit silly. So the proposal was simply first to say, hey, let's extend the sponsors to include SIG chairs. Then this led to discussion among the discussion, the whole idea of why we had sponsors in the first place came up. And there is also lab stewards. And the lab stewards in many ways also play an important role here in looking at the proposals, making sure all the information that's expected is there. And, you know, and we typically have dialogues with the people proposing the lab to make sure, you know, they understand what it takes. And they have all their ducks in line and so on. And I quite frankly, you know, so people have said, hey, at least there was a comment, I forget who it is now, I'm sorry. Do we even need sponsors anyway? So I have to admit, I, you know, I don't think we need them, but I was against having them. I know some people felt better about having them. And so there's really, you know, the first step is to say just add SIG chairs. The extra step is just say, oh, the alternative is to say, no, forget the sponsors. We don't need sponsors. The stored labs can be entrusted with filtering out the weeds. And that's good enough. So that's kind of like the byran for this issue. In my opinion, you know, I was trying to keep it super simple and say, let's just add SIG chairs to the list. Be done. But I'm, you know, I'm happy to listen and entertaining the discussion on that front. If people right there have an alternative of just getting rid of sponsors. I'm not, you know, I'm not opposed to that either. So my read of the comments is that most people want to continue sponsors. Okay. So let's start with this, you know, let's assume the status quo on why we have sponsors. It's, you know, the reason we add them is still valid and we are keeping them. And so the proposal is, you know, extend the list of sponsors to SIG chairs. If you're not in agreement with the proposal, I would like to hear what the, you know, rationale is. For me, and I'm not saying which way I vote right now, but SIGs are not under CS, TSC control or under our, you know, governance, if you will. So the question is, do we want that them to be able to come in and and do things? And I'm not saying which way I would go for. I think my comments sort of had some hints, but it's, you know, I just want to make sure we, you know, just don't go at it and then realize that we've stepped into something. And so let me ask you, I mean, why do you think that could be a problem? I just, you know, with a purist hat on, I just want to make sure people understand. One thing I worry about related to that is, is the sponsor, someone who understands the GitHub repositories, who understands kind of what the requirements are for kind of getting things up and running. The sponsorship role, when people have asked me to sponsor, has not been so much a should we shouldn't we kind of decision process, but rather have we done the right things to be able to get started? Meaning, is the code open? Have other organizations looked at it? Do they have a use case that they've clearly defined, just kind of the basics? How do I explain this as a thing? Kind of steps, not so much a filtering step. All right. Anyone else? I mean, I think, you know, yeah, go ahead. Sorry, Arno. I would, I would expect that as a sponsor, right, the sponsor is really helping that group of people through the process of contributing to open source, right? So it may be the first time that they've contributed. They may not even know how to use GitHub, which I've seen even within, you know, the community. We have people who are, have never used it before. And so it's the first time and we've actually even had discussions, I think here around, you know, well, should we move to GitHub because not everybody can contribute via GitHub, blah, blah, blah, whatever. So I think that sponsorship role is really about helping to build that lab, to something that, you know, helps to build a community, helps to maybe eventually become a project, right? And so I want to, I want to be sure that as we consider that sponsorship role, it's not just a, you know, a check mark or sign off, right? There is something behind the reason that we wanted sponsors in the first place. So, you know, I'm, I'm personally against this. I'll be the first brave one to say it on this call. I do think that, you know, we moved the SIGs out from underneath the TSE for a reason, and that we didn't think they were technical in nature and they were focused on industry. That's not to say that there aren't people within the SIGs who could fill a role of sponsorship, but, you know, we did specifically say that SIGs were not part of the TSE. So what you're implying is therefore they should not be sponsors. Yeah, maybe it's species logic, but yep, that's exactly it. I also would kind of like to add to that. It doesn't mean we couldn't add particular folks in the SIGs as sponsors. I just, it makes me nervous to make them automatically sponsors where some of them might not be involved on the code side at all. And to that end, I don't know if we really need to get that complicated about things. I'm in agreement with what I've heard so far and more or less commented similarly in the thread that, you know, this is an opportunity for winning support for your project, for getting mentorship. And I don't think we have to get real complicated with the criteria. It's easier we keep things for people better. All right. Thank you for those spoken. Anyone else? I know this is Dave Huesby. I just wanted to point out that some of our labs are not entirely focused on code. So there's a new lab for this summer to develop a community, sorry, a university course based on hyperledger fabric using hyperledger umbra as the simulation environment. And so that lab is going to be educational material. There will be some code examples and labs and things like that, but it's not, its primary goal is not to write code. It's to develop the curriculum and the course material for a university course. So if it's the technical versus non-technical aspect of SIGS that matters, just pointing out that not all labs are focused on developing code. But I remember the discussion of like white papers and where those are created. I don't mean to dig that body up, but you know those are a non-technical example of a work product as well. So I'm curious why we think we need to extend it. I mean we have 11 and I think we're going to grow to 14 or something this year. TSC members, that not enough people to reach out to and say, hey, do you support this? Well, it's also the 40 or so maintainers, maybe we're up to 50 maintainers. I mean there are tons of people that you can reach out to. I don't know why we have to extend it. That's a good point. Go ahead. Hi, it's Marta. One thing that I would recommend having worked with some of the people that wanted to submit labs is making it the list of who can be in sponsor with some contact details, much more clear and visible. Because at least with people that I've been talking to, they come to me and say, well, we don't know these people. We don't know how to contact them. So what do we do? Can you find someone for us? So I'm happy to do it obviously, but probably having a clear list with contact details of whatever people prefer to however people prefer to be contacted would be a great addition. That's a very good point, Marta. I agree with you. That might actually help. And I wanted to give a little bit more background. As a steward, I get pinged all the time because people make proposals, they have a bogus sponsor, meaning somebody who doesn't qualify, and per the two days rule. And so we tell them, sorry, your sponsor is not qualified. They say, who can be? And then as soon as you read, they say, oh, could you please be my sponsor? And so we get hit by that all the time. And it's no surprise. You see Tracy posted who has been sponsoring. The people who sponsored the most, this is myself and VP, and we are both stewards. It's not by accident that we also have the most labs that we sponsor because we get asked all the time. And it's very honestly, I look at the proposal, I'm like, yeah, it makes perfect sense. And it's hard to say, yeah, but I don't want to be sponsored every lab that gets proposed. Why don't you go look for somebody else? And then they get a bit of a goose chase. And so that's why I think Martha's point is very relevant. And if we did say, hey, sorry, I don't want to be the sponsor, but please consult this list. That might make it a bit easier, both for them to find one other person and for me for one to say, no, thank you. Turning this around, maybe a different way of phrasing it is, if anyone on the TSC is looking for opportunities to help mentor new contributors or help grow the hyperledger community, if you're not already serving as a mentor on one of the mentorship programs we have, this is, I think, a high impact because I don't think it'd be that hard to be a steward of a lab. Most of them are not super busy, but it's a great way to pass on wisdom about how to participate in an open source project and how to be part of hyperledger. So I realize I sort of started this discussion, like to sort of flip it on its head for a second. We're still talking about governance from a staring perspective. I mean, personally, I'd like to see more involvement and maybe it's just the role I'm in. I don't see a lot of involvement between the SIGs and the projects and things like that. And maybe it's there and I'm just not seeing it. But this would be an opportunity for SIGs and projects and the more quote unquote technical side to work closer together and make a better community versus us versus them. So I think from a staring perspective, where do we want to be in a year? Do we want to work more closely with SIGs? Do we want them to be off on their own? And if I'm wrong about the collaboration or lack of it, feel free to correct me. So, Mark, I think you're hitting on something and I think the question is, are we suggesting because these projects that come in with SIG chair sponsors are projects that the SIGs want to do, right? Normally. So I guess one of the comments I think that Dan made earlier was this idea of if the SIGs have to go to a maintainer of a project or a TSC that in and of itself will bring that SIG closer to potentially that project or that TSC member. So I'm not sure how to, you know, I get what you're saying, but I also think that there's multiple ways maybe of achieving what it is that you're suggesting unless I'm misunderstanding your direction. So my understanding of what you were trying to say was that we should allow SIG chairs to be sponsors. And so I guess I'm saying that if we don't allow SIG chairs to be sponsors, then it opens up the possibility of those SIGs becoming closer to the projects in the TSC. Well, I think, well, I guess my point was more, you know, we shouldn't look at it as a straight governance thing. We should look at it from a staring perspective. Personally, I'd like to see us work closer with SIGs. If we allow them to just sponsor projects, I mean labs, excuse me, then I think we'd miss out on that opportunity. Okay. So we're on the same page. Labs, labs get created. There's no real reporting on labs. So labs can get created every day. And as a TSC, I don't know that we know unless we were one of the sponsors that were lab stewards. It actually does. I know like labs do quarterly reports, not every lab, but like the lab stewards who are already overworked, but just say where do we had six new ones or whatever. So, I mean, I think, Mark, you're pointing out some, and again, we've had this discussion about should the SIGs be underneath the TSC? Should they be closer aligned with the technical side of things? Rather than the board, as far as I know, only the board gets those reports from the SIG. So who knows what's going on over there in SIG land, so to speak. It would be good to have the SIGs be more closely affiliated and affinity, or aligned, I should say, with what's going on in the various projects or labs. And for us to know a little bit more about what they're thinking, are they developing requirements? I've never seen, in all my days, I've never seen anybody from a SIG say, hey, you guys in fabric should build X or add this new feature or whatever, never happened. That's not why they're there. Supposedly, they're not there to create new requirements for other people to go build stuff. That's kind of an anti-pattern and open source, anyways. All their meetings are public. Most of them are recorded and posted. Usually, these are talk shops, right? These are places where people who want to talk about the application in healthcare or in education or other things gather to listen to presentations, and sometimes they go off and form subgroups on specific themes, and then occasionally they say, let's work on some code. And that's when we as staff direct them into a properly TSC overseen process of being a part of the labs. And that's why I would tend to lean towards still having the strong connection with the TSC by having a steward for any of those labs. It has to be somebody who's part of the TSC association, including the maintainers and those sorts of things, to keep that very tight. But you all are also completely welcome to come over to the SIGs and participate in the meetings and look for opportunities for that kind of thing, too, for where there might be new requirements. But usually, they're more at the application tier, frankly. They're usually not having conversations about what does the infrastructure need to do or change, because there's still a lot of big topics and open questions about how do you apply this to health records, for example. So part of this... Hold on. Can I just add one thing to correct the request about reports? The board does get a monthly summary. All SIG chairs and their team and their participants used to do quarterly reports. They asked us to do biannual because there was a lot of work. So the next one is due July 15th or in or around July 15th. So I encourage the TSCs will post it onto the TSC as they get posted. And I just encourage you to read about all the good work that the SIGs are doing. And as Brian said, work with us or go directly to the chairs if you want to participate or you need something very specifically. We've tried to make connections to the performance and scale working group, etc. Just please let us know how we can facilitate those discussions. Yeah, that was pretty much my point, Daniela. Those reports do exist. And I wanted to point out I'm showing the CM SIG page right on GitHub for those of you on Zoom. This was a place that the capital markets requested to be able to work on stuff. So not everything has to be a lab. And some time ago Bippin requested the ID working group also have a place to work in GitHub. And so this was created for that. And you see that Bippin's doing some work here. So not everything has to be a lab. But you know, there are other ways. And I see that David has his hand up. So I'll be quiet. Yeah, I was going to ask about that, Dave. Is that because you won't talk or is that all over? Sorry, that was that was old. Okay, I'm lowering my hand now. That was just about the labs being, you know, some of them are non technical in nature. Okay, so I've heard quite a bit of negative, you know, reaction to the proposal. Does anybody support it? But I don't know, as this is Angela, as I said there, I support this for a very simple reason. I think we have to make ideas flowing as much as possible. And I don't get, I don't get really the point that we need technical people to judge ideas. I mean, if an idea has a value, we should not judge who is proposing this idea, if it's technical or not technical, or what's the background. If an idea makes sense, makes sense. This is the most rational argument. So to me, this seems going this direction to expand the possibility to have ideas flowing. So that's for me, it's very fun. In the comments, actually, I've also read other ways to improve this flowing idea. That's, we should apply all of this. I mean, we have to, the goal, my person, from my point of view, the goal should be let's have more people speak, to propose things and see and evaluate, discuss. And that's, that should be the goal, not to say, no, no, we have this only technical people. And sometimes, you know, technical people also get spring things very wrong. All right. Thank you, Angelo. Anyone else wants to speak in support of the proposal? So it sounds like there's only Angelo and myself at this point. So that's all there is that I think we can kill this officially. Okay. At the same time, I just want to reiterate, it is a really good way for anybody on the technical side of the community to help us grow the hyperledger community is to help you have a steward for a lab. And maybe there's a way we send a call out to the maintainers lists or some, you know, on rocket chat, that sort of thing for more, more help on that front. So can we do what Marta said, which was provide like a list of people who are willing to consider sponsoring labs? And I posted this in the TSC chat, but I think it would be also very useful if we listed people by area. Like, you know, maybe if you're submitting a fabric based lab, you probably, you know, pick Gary as your sponsor, not Dan Milton or something like that, right? Well, Gary could be applied to any lab really. Well, clearly, but, you know, it goes without saying stop. That's maybe all we need is that to say if you don't know to us, just ask Gary. No, but more seriously, I fear we're going to talk about building a list which inherently is dynamic and changing all the time, especially, you know, TSC changes once a year, but the maintainers change much more often. And so I think we need to have a kind of a meta list that says, you know, the sponsors, you know, the TSC members with the link to TSC, and then, you know, the different projects, maintainers, and we put the links to the projects, and we let people go look for the maintainers file to look for the people. But I, and I don't want to start yet another project which will end up on RISE lab about, you know, creating some script that will gather all this data and put it in the nicely, you know, format in one page. We can let people follow the links. I was thinking of more a volunteer thing where you just put up a page, and if people are interested, then, you know, they want to help, they can just put up their name, because a lot of it is just whether people will respond to email or not. And if you have someone that's volunteered, then they might be more inclined to like respond to an email about this rather than people just sort of, you know, cold emailing maintainers. That's an interesting idea. How do people feel about that? Are we going to end up with an empty list, or are people going to volunteer? Well, I'll volunteer. Is it a list of people from the groups that are already eligible to be? Yes, of course, it does to be, you know, if you're one of the qualified sponsors, you know, you can go put your name there to signal to, you know, labs or lab proposals that you're volunteering to be a sponsor. And we should all put every number of our contact info. Well, you can still decline on a case-by-case basis, obviously, but it just, you know, a way to signal that you're open to it. I think this, this is an interesting idea. I'd be happy to do that if that people feel like that would go well. So I don't want to end at least with three P names, and that's it, because then it's like, Hey, I propose I will stick something together here in the lab space, which will be much like the TSC decision log so that people can tag themselves as I'm willing to entertain sponsoring your lab. And we can just point people at a page and say, you know, here's Chris, he's an expert in documentation. And here's our no, he's an expert in surfing, right? And stuff like that. And you get to select, right? You self-select what you represent as your experts there. All right, let's go with that. So we can't, so we can't add Gary because he's not an expert in anything. I like it. Dave Hushby, now you're playing the game. I like it. I like it. Well, Gary is an expert at the very subtle digs. So all right, anything else on this topic? I think we've killed it. Something a little bit to the side, I guess. I did think that having like a community list maintained in the lab space so people can easily find sponsors as one, but we've also been having a little bit more time on the TSC calls. So I was thinking, would it be a good place for whether this is like labs projects who want to present, who are already a labs project or people who are looking for sponsors who want to present, maybe we can start using some of our time and give it out to other things because this would also be an easy way to also know what's happening in labs if we give them the chance to just speak. That was like one of the other ideas that I thought could make sponsorship a little bit easier. Interesting idea. My concern is that it's a slippery slope. The whole concept of the labs was the TSC doesn't have to get involved and labs can be created with that TSC involvement. I think there are also wide degrees of labs. There are people that are just happy to sort of post in labs and leave something there, and there are labs that sort of want to go through the full project life cycle, and having some TSC eyes on labs that want to become projects might not be a bad thing. I kind of like Swith's idea. We could try time boxing it. So maybe it's the first meeting of every month. There's 10 minutes at the end for people to do a lightning pitch. All right. I do think it's interesting. I didn't mean to sound negative. I just want to. I very much appreciate you not burning time for all of us. So Arno, I know our previous discussion was we're going to wrap this meeting up early, and it's such a light agenda. I just wanted to poke you in the ribs a little bit. You know, I want to close now. So that's what I'm trying to get to. So I appreciate that. Arno, before you say you want to close now, don't ask the question. Does anybody have anything else to say before I close? Do you have anything else? Not a value. That's why you shouldn't ask the question. These are good conversations to have as a community though. Thank you Arno for making this space for them. All right. With that being said, I think we can close the call on this. We have closed the issue that was on the agenda. So I feel like we are making progress and this was time well spent. Plus we have been entertained by Gary Zoomer. So that's all good. So it's in the decision log? Or do we just want to? I already updated all that. It is. The issue is closed. The proposal was rejected. All right. Thank you. All right. Good job, Brian. You deserve a raise. All right. Thanks. I'll be sure to tell Brian. Raise for a ride. Yeah. All right. Meeting is closed. Thank you very much all for joining. Talk to you.