 wherever you are. Just a reminder of our antitrust policy. I'm sure it's burned into your retinas right now. So on the agenda today we've got our usual reminders of the upcoming hack fest and the election. And then we have a quarterly update from... I saw a note last night I didn't see anything yet this morning. Do we have Adrienne or somebody on from the Colt project? Seems not, so we may have to defer that. And who's going to do sawtooth? Sean on? Dan's on. I can do a sawtooth at Dan's on. Okay, good. Sorry, just a couple minutes getting through the the multi-click pattern here to get into the zoom. Okay, you're very faint or that might be me. And then we have an update from the public sector working group. They're going to request a new chair. And then we have two updates from the white paper working group, so Hart, and then healthcare working group. And then we have a proposal from our colleagues on the IBMP proposal. Any other items from the agenda? All right, you're none. We can get going Todd. All right, sounds good. I'll move quickly through the first step. Quick reminder, next hack fest Montreal, October 3rd and 4th, right after member summit. Beyond that, to keep the cadence going, we're looking at Q1 2019 for Asia Pacific. It's been a bit since we brought it there. We are looking at spaces like the Hong Kong or Singapore. And then beyond that annual TSC election, just quick reminder, we will start the nomination process August 9th. Details in the link that went out in the minutes, as well as a link to those that are eligible. If you do not see your name on that list and should be, please get in touch with either me or Tracy Kurt ASAP and we'll get that sorted out for you. And with that, I think let's move over to the project updates. We've got a couple to get through. The first one being Quilt, Adrienne or someone from the Quilt team, are you on? Todd, before we move on to either Quilt or Dan. Yep. And I realize my connection is kind of crappy. Are we going to get next week a list of the eligible voters to read you? And what about the work group chair? Is that, is Tracy doing that behind the scenes? That should already be in there. Tracy, are you on? It's in the link of the process. It should be in there. That's how we had it built out. So let me connect with Tracy if she's not on and just we'll make sure that's done. Okay. Well then I would just then urge people to review the list. And if you think you should be on it and you're not, then it's, you've got a couple of weeks to get to Todd and Tracy and or if you're on a working group to your working group chair to make them, oops, muted, unmuted. So unless Adrienne is on or somebody from Quilt, I guess we can hear from Dan. Yeah. So I can jump right into it then. Go ahead Dan. Somebody post the link in the chat please. Todd, I don't know if you want to. Yeah, yeah, I'll do it. No, not a problem. Into the TSC chat. Yeah, no, I was saying we could otherwise just pop it on the screen. Otherwise I could share my screen when it was easiest there. But I will launch into it since it seems like we've got a pretty full agenda here. I guess it took me longer to put this update together than I thought it would. I ended up spending a lot of my afternoon on this, but that turned out to be good things. I didn't really recognize how much we had been, how much we'd accomplished here. So basically all good news on the sawtooth front here. I feel like we still have some good momentum from our release announcement earlier this year that we still have new people coming to the platform even though we haven't made a whole lot of new public announcements. We still see good commit traffic from a variety of places and so that all seems very healthy. And the core maintainers and new contributors have been adding a lot of new features. So I've called out a few of those up at the top there. So these are things that are in master but not necessarily in a release. So the more adventurous out there have already been grabbing the nightly builds out of master and working with these new capabilities. So the one that's listed on there is WebAssembly. This is a different way to do smart contracts out in the Ethereum community and EOS. You're seeing some more experimentation with this same mechanism. And it's kind of a way to do smart contracts but not have to be involved with solidity specifically that you can use a whole variety of languages that end up being treated like bytecode that you can store then on the chain. Another really big feature that we've been working on for a while is a notion of consensus engines. Consensus engines are essentially taking the consensus separate process. And one of the main advantages of that is we can now incorporate consensus algorithms that have been written in different languages. So kind of like our transaction processor model that you can write transaction processors in different languages and they communicate over a clean boundary with the core. Now that's the same thing for consensus. So the outcome of that is we're seeing maybe two or three new consensus algorithms becoming available for sawtooth around our next release. And those will be raft which is nice and fast but we hadn't tackled originally because it's only crash fault tolerant. But there's a lot of interest in raft. So we'll have raft. There's also some early work going on with the PBFT implementation. And then we're working on a new version of Poet as well. The next big thing on the list here is Rust. So implementing sawtooth internals in Python allowed us to adapt the architecture quickly before our 1.0 release. And now that we're really happy with that architecture we're sort of solidifying it in Rust even though that sounds maybe a little funny to solidify something in Rust. But yeah so we're moving from an interpreted language to a compiled language and we're anticipating some significant performance benefit from that. We had feedback from the community on challenges with deployment. It's fairly straightforward to deploy sawtooth since we've got a unified architecture for the validators. You don't have to deploy different styles of nodes. Just the same. A lot of people want to be able to deploy things rapidly in cloud environments and sort of form things out within their own data centers. And so we've got an Ansible repo now that will help lower the bar for people to do bigger deployments of sawtooth. We've also improved our documentation so that developers coming in have sort of answered the frequently asked questions there. And then we had one more SDK that came in. It must have been around the time of our last update but this one was particularly interesting because we had somebody that we hadn't seen out in the community beforehand just sort of show up out of the blue with a .NET SDK. So that was pretty neat to see just from a community perspective. And then the last thing that I'll go through on the big changes in the sawtooth world is that we've added an RFC process. And the idea with that is before somebody goes and spends a lot of time on a big feature that might imply some little architectural changes or from their perspective little changes to the system, we don't want them to spend that time and then find out when they come offer it that, and this goes for core maintainers as well as new contributors, that there's something architecturally inconsistent about that. And so we want to get support for the feature early on before somebody invests the time in writing it. So this process isn't meant for bug fixes, it's not meant for relatively small features but if you want to add something like the WebAssembly capability, it's good to put that through the RFC process and then everybody gets a chance to get some input on there if they see something that's a design flaw or something that's architecturally inconsistent or on the positive side just that there's some awareness that a feature is coming before you go through the whole process of implementing it. Okay, so that's all the high level stuff with sawtooth. I did want to reflect some issues. There was a sense from some of the other maintainers, so I of course sit in this TSC meeting on a weekly basis but a lot of the other maintainers, they spend most of their time working on the sawtooth code or in other aspects of their day job and I don't know that they felt well attached to this aspect of the hyperledger organization. Feel like encouraging some more participation out in the meetups is helping to close that gap but I still wanted to reflect the views of some of the other maintainers out there. Maybe slightly related to that, I understand there's global meetups that hyperledger helps facilitate and I don't know if all of our maintainers feel plugged into that process as well. And then there was something that's a little bit tactical here but as far as access to the project pages, we had a maintainer report that he'd been rejected from requesting access to that. So just as a feeling of ownership of a project and proper involvement from the maintainers in the way that- And what project page are you referring to, the sawtooth project page or? Yeah. The one hyperledger.org slash project, sawtooth or whatever it is. I believe so. Dan, let me connect up with you offline on that and figure out what happened and we'll put that sorted out for you. Okay, great, I assume it was something logistic but you know how people feel when they get rejected for something so maybe we patch that up quickly. Let's see here, as far as things within sawtooth, we've been sitting on our latest bug release for a while and this is an aspect of people being really deep on working on new features and we had something just about at the finish line and release and then I think there was a protobuf change that was pushed from the Google projects that broke some things and anyway we're just kind of coming around to get him out so that's something that I'm not real happy with but we're working to resolve that. The increased, the continued increase in interest in sawtooth means that the chat and the PRs are increasing and that's, we're still trying to stay on top of that but I am seeing a little increase in those cues so again that's just I guess more effort on those activities. Yeah, last item there is that we've been in the process for a while of looking how to get off of a Jenkins environment that was originally donated by Intel and getting that into the Linux foundations hosted or the Hyperledgers hosted Jenkins environment. I think that's moving along but I just wanted to make everybody aware of that. All right, almost done here so releases, I kind of covered we've been stalled on that 105 for no great reason there and then that probably won't include a lot of the dock fixes that we've done that we get a lot of frequently asked questions from the developers so those dock fixes are available in the Nightly Master Build so that's normally what I link people to when they're asking questions but that's maybe not intuitive of course if you just land on the page and go looking for the latest docks. So that'll be in the 106 which should probably just trail 105 by a couple weeks ideally and then all those features that I mentioned up top for things like rust and raft, targeting those for a developer preview in the August timeframe. See here so moving into communication like I said chat and everything is up still seems to be the case that very few people are interested in using the mail server. I guess that's just maybe something that's stylistically different from what what other people expect or communicated about having the mail list activity. It seems like everybody's just happy to use chat. We do besides email and chat host a phone call every week to help app developers get over any starting obstacles or advanced obstacles and that's proven to be pretty popular but that was all US friendly time zone so we are creating an Asia friendly time zone call and I don't have the time for that now but all that will be available on the on the community calendar along with the rest of the Hyperledger project meetings. Besides that that app developer call we also have a tech forum that typically follows this TSC meeting on alternating weeks. We canceled the one for this week because of some scheduling conflicts but there's two the next couple items on the agenda that I should have put in there are min BFT so that's a new consensus algorithm that will be presented by be presented by by a sort of a new contributor I guess and then there's been a couple people including myself that have been experimenting with with ZK Snarks and how you would do sawtooth application development with with zero knowledge proofs so we'll have a session or two on that following the min BFT one. Sprint planning and so forth is is also something that you can dial into and then I think pretty much everything at this point is is a bit rehashing what we've already covered so we've got a bunch of new features slated for a 1.1 that should be August. See the RFCs for descriptions of those features and then maybe the only new point there is the SDKs those were all part of the same repo with sawtooth core and that was really bloating our build times so all those SDKs are being spun out so we've got now I think 752 repos so if you want to grab all the sawtooth repos that's a fun task but in most cases you probably just want to be getting the SDK releases anyway. Other news so maintainer diversity bitwise has continued to increase their participation and I believe they've eclipsed Intel in the maintainer count so as sawtooth was originally viewed I think as an Intel project because it's the early contributions there it's at least not the case from a maintainer count perspective at this point which I'm of course happy with to grow some community around there and we have participation from you know we've got maintainers from a variety of other organizations as well and the accounts for commits and committers and domains I think I pulled together correctly from across those 9000 repos that we have and that's that's about it. Question for you Dan. Any questions? Question for you Dan. Yes sir. Is a ribbon. Can you give a brief description of poet 2 because it's it's been so associated in the public's mind with sawtooth that any changes there would be significant news? Yeah and we are early in one sense and not early in another. Some of the research for how to evolve poet has been going on since last year so in that sense. Dan and then can we take this offline because we're most happily through the call and we have three more updates and a proposal to get through. Sure so let me just then the two second version of it is that poet 2 reduces the hardware requirements which should increase the breadth of of machines that are capable of running poet with its Byzantine fault tolerant features. You can always run poet on any architecture if you cut back on that Byzantine protection and there's different configurations that support that out of the box. You don't have to figure out how to do that it's just switching which version of poet you want. Any other questions? So Dan this is Bahua and how may the attendee be present on the weekly meeting you early? On our app developer call? Yeah it varies some days it's it's just a couple people that pop in with a question and and the meeting is pretty quiet for the second half of the hour and other days we've got about 20 people. Ten people so most of people from US part and maybe how many people are from the Asia area? I don't know it's it's uh I don't uh I'm not sure uh people who may be dialing in from Asia I don't know if they're just able to dial in at an awkward time uh so I don't have a good count there but I know that we've got anecdotal uh information that people were unable to reach that time zone which was why we wanted to spin one up in an Asia friendly time zone. Okay thanks. Yep any other questions? All right thanks Dan. Thanks Chris. I think you know in in deference to the team that's proposing the iBanP proposal maybe we should move that up and then because they're not regular attendees on the call and then we can after we get through that we can proceed with quotes and the white paper. Sounds good. So Federica are you? Federica and the iBanP team are you are you there? Looks like they're speaking but I'm mute. Okay maybe we should quickly go to one or other maybe if Adrienne is joined you're gonna have to close update while they figure out the mute button. All right sounds good. Yeah I'm I'm here. Thanks Andrew. All right so yeah apologies obviously that this is very late um things have been a bit a bit hectic of late with changing companies and a few things and I unfortunately have a conflict at this time most weeks um so as I said in the report uh it's been a slow quarter for the project um unfortunately the main contributors uh being myself and another guy at Ripple have both been pulled onto other stuff of late because I've left Ripple to join new companies in the process of joining Hyperledge I think will announce this month coming by the name of Coil and David has been pretty occupied with some deliverables within Ripple that have I think they're pushing for a deadline sometime later this month that hasn't given him any free time to work on Coil. Some positive news lately we have a new contributor who's an ex Ripple employee is now freelancing based on Asia I think and he's already started contributing on the issues and code reviews he's looking to free up some time in the future to contribute more to the code base directly but otherwise unfortunately not a lot of progress in the project last few months. Any questions? Any questions for Adrian? All right well good luck with the new endeavor and good to see you guys back in and a little bit more engaged soon. Yeah so comments on our scope um I know you know we had been trying to use Coil to the home to um bring uh put together feature complete implementations that a lot of intelligent components and sort of catch up with where the reference implementations are. We we in discussing on the last call decided it may be better to focus on some of the smaller components initially just have some libraries and focus on interoperability with the JavaScript code as opposed to alternative implementation. So we'll probably be focusing more on that over the next couple months. I know David has plans to add a few new codecs for some of the outstanding protocols. So I'm hoping yeah things will improve over the next quarter and we'll have a lot more focus on call it manageable chunks. Adrian? It's whipping again. We are starting a paper on interoperability in the architecture working group and since Quilt is one of the most prominent interoperability solutions inside the Hyperledger hard house I believe you know you guys should at least show up and make some contributions there. That would be a bunch of. I'd like to do that. Can you can you share the details with me maybe via email? Sure. If I can do it personally or we can try and get someone to help on that. I know we this isn't in the report and I don't know if it rhymes on the call but we have been exchanging a few emails about you know Quilt and your business what we're doing and we're hoping to you know bring a few other things to the table at Hyperledger as well around projects we're doing. One in particular is called Codeus but I don't want to deviate from the agenda today. Maybe we can provide some info on that down the line. Super. Thanks to Adrian, thanks to Ben. Okay, Federica and the IBM PP team, do you have are we back online? We still can't hear you. That's better. Okay. I think we lost you again. Yeah, I saw the note that he left the meeting. Should we maybe switch to one of the other updates while they're sharing the connectivity? So Federica, still can't hear you. You might want to try reconnecting or dialing in via the phone number. Sometimes zoom can be a little bit tricky. So if a heart is on, maybe you can give us an update on the actually, Todd, how do we want to do this public sector chair? Yeah, so this should be pretty straightforward. Kind of the context of it was we launched the public sector work group as that was coming up to speed. Marta B. Karska from the Hyperledger team had been chairing the work group. The idea was that she would have a three month runway there while searching for a chair. She's found a good chair for that. So we really just need to take a quick vote on that. But Marta, I'll let you give some quick context there and your vote of support for that. But otherwise, that's just a simple vote with the TSE. Thank you, Todd. Can everyone hear me okay? Yes. Great. So yes, so we've had three meetings now or four meetings. It has been going very well. The group is very engaged. We have regular 18 people or so. And one of the third people that has been showing up to the meetings on a regular basis is very active. She has been very supportive. Took on a lot of burden. She was even able to run one of the calls while I was traveling and so on. And the group seems to be very accepting of her. She's very objective, which was the important part of finding a new chair. So that's why I propose that she would take over. That was the plan anyway. And we don't have to wait the three months if we've identified someone because they did their job. Thanks. I reviewed the resume that you circulated and it looks like Rose has some great background. This is Dan and I for one think that that looks like a great, great option for leading that working group. All right. Todd, do you want to do any objections? Yeah, if there's no other discussion. So for the eight KSC folks on the call, all in favor please say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any abstaining? Any opposed? All right, that passes unanimously. Thank you. So Rosa is the new chair. All right. Thank you. All right, Federica, do we have you? So sorry for this technical problem. Can you hear me now? Yes, we can. Okay, thank you very much. So we have proposed to Hyperledger to become a partner and part of your consortium. And we have developed this plugin solution in REST API. I'm not a developer. I'm the marketing manager of this little team. And there is here with me our main developer, our CTO, that is Lorenzo. We are Italian, so we can't speak English very well, but we'll try to explain what we are doing and what we are trying to do. Iban Portability Project is a project that is born because in Europe there isn't the concept of the portability of the account number in banking sector. So customer clients can't switch bank without changing their own Iban number. This change would be possible because this thing has happened about 10, 15 years ago in the sector. So when the phone number was only one for each operator. So when you wanted to change operator, you had to change also your phone number. And this was a very big impediment and was a market barrier that now is broken. And with our project, we are trying to broker another barrier in the banking sector and promote the fintech activities. So this project is burned because of this reason. We have developed REST API plugin that you can see in a link that I have shared in our proposal that we would like to have all the suggestions and we'd like to improve and make better for next Zoom call. And our dream and what we would like to do is to give to Hyperledger consortium our plugin, make it to become an open source plugin that can be shared also in USA. Even if this solution was born as a new European solution, but I have tested that also in the USA there is a very big interest about this technology and about the value proposition under this project. Right now, we are in a little crowdfunding campaign. We have done many meetups and we have seen that many people are interested in this activity. So in the marketing activities, we are moving on. But we'd like to make the next step and the next step is the blockchain Hyperledger Fabric step. So we are trying to convince you that that is a good proposal. Can you hear me? Yeah, no, it's a good overview. So I don't know if you have understood the other thing because I can't speak English very well. But if you want, I can give the microphone to all my colleagues. We can understand you very well. Do not do not wonder about that. Yeah. So if I'm understanding this correctly and I think this is really an application layer on top that would leverage and I think it leverages fabric in the proposal. And not necessarily a formal component of the platform. Am I understanding that correctly? Would this be usable in another context such as we talked to? No, it's only for banks. It isn't usable in other contexts. Well, he's asking about whether the underlying DLT can be anything other than fabric. And why Fabric? Can you explain why? Because I'm not a technical figure but Lorenzo knows about these things. Because we won't have isolated transaction. We won't use the channel and the actor in the blockchain can see only our transaction and not the competitor transaction. We won't encapsulate the transaction in the same blockchain. So currently you are only targeting fabric because of the presence of channels in Fabric will help your particular use case. Is that correct? Yes, of course. Yeah. So I think in general, privacy is the key component for their requirements. But from the technology, but from the implementation point of view, bearing that specific requirement of the technology availability on our current blockchain offerings, I don't really see any specific constraint that this wouldn't be able to run on other implementations like Sawtooth. Right? If there's a way to solve the privacy issue, then it should be able to support other blockchain implementation. Especially since Dan is working on a ZK Snarks implementation. So it strikes me that as an application layer thing, technically it doesn't fall within the charge scope of Hyperledger, which is to basically do with technology, not applications. However, we did open up the Hyperledger Labs as a place where that sort of development could take place. And in fact, they've have approved a project called DP Core, which is coming from Finland. And again, it is sort of addressing an application layer on top of one of our or potentially others of our DLT platforms. So I'm wondering, do we have any of the stewards on? I know Tracy's not on and I don't know. I am a lab steward. Yeah, I thought so. And so, I mean, what's your thoughts? Yeah, I mean, you know, we have had several other solutions that are fabric specific get adopted into the Hyperledger under the Hyperledger hot house, but that was in the beginning. And currently, I believe what you said is correct, which is that we would like to think about solutions that are, you know, more applicable across the platforms or developing a brand new DLT on their own. So definitely, I believe that this would belong in a lab at least in the beginning. And then, right, you can seek to grow it outside the labs by, you know, the number of contributions and the plans to expand your scope because labs were only conceived of as a sort of a place where things could grow from, or of course, die, because there's not enough life in there. But definitely, you know, getting it into the labs would be the first step if the TSC feels that this is an application layer thing and needs to be incubated. But it certainly feels like it. And so, Federica, so the process for creating the Hyperledger labs, and it's just a different GitHub organization that it still sort of, it still falls, if you will, under the Hyperledger umbrella. But it's just not formally a Hyperledger project. And as I mentioned, there's others that are coming into that. And I think the organization is still trying to sort of figure out, where do solutions and or application layer things fit? How do we, you know, how do we support that kind of growing ecosystem around our respective platforms? And so, the process for that is basically, Emily, I can send you a note that sort of points you to the process, but it's fairly straightforward. We basically need to have somebody, a member of the TSC, and or one of the maintainers of an existing project be a sponsor for this. And then, and Bippin can certainly tell you the rest of the process, but basically then the stewards are responsible for approving or not, if the case may be the addition of a new Hyperledger ledger labs, and then they can help facilitate, you know, getting the repository moved over and sending sending things up and so forth for you. But I think that, again, and I'd love to hear from others on the TSC, their thoughts, but it feels to me like this is sort of an application layer thing or a solution layer, and that we should steer towards the labs. So this is the question that I had is, so I think you don't have the application layer pieces is not as much of a concern for me as it seems like this would just be a single blockchain network versus, you know, maybe multiple people that would be deploying something for, I don't know, bond trading or trade finance or whatever. So, Frederica, can you maybe speak to that? Would there be multiple blockchain networks running this I've been the application or would it just be a single blockchain network shared among all the banks? Can you repeat to the question? Yeah, is it would this the IBANP implementation saying this or not, but a lot of times the question about why blockchain needs to be answered first for applications and I don't know if we have the time to get into that here but if you've got a single essentially a single database interaction between two parties that doesn't sound like a blockchain problem, but if you've got a multi-party interaction where all those parties have to agree on the same on the same state of information, so for example if you had a store of all the IBAN numbers and which companies they associated with then the entire industry is using that shared database and that's where you would employ a blockchain so I wasn't clear from this proposal whether there was or was not a blockchain need for this application. From what I understood then the issue is portability of IBAN across banks so there are multiple parties involved. That was my understanding too and wouldn't that necessitate just a single blockchain network then? So I guess I'm just trying to distinguish between is this an application or is this a single network that would only... Yeah, that part I'm a little bit unclear on too because if this is going to work then all the banks have to recognize it as such. Right, and then to this point about could it be on sawtooth or fabric, if there's only going to be one canonical network then it seems sort of it doesn't really matter about what it could be. Well actually there are thoughts about interoperability right? I mean because if it doesn't have to be a single network, if interoperability evolves to a certain point otherwise I agree with you completely that it has to be a single network but if you know if you can produce those claims somehow across networks then it could work. Yeah, I mean again as I said in the chat this feels a lot also like an indeed level application on top of the way that any can work where it can basically anchor claim on any blockchain. I see now what Kelly was saying that there would only ever be one deployment of this and that would in my mind also reduce the interest in having this be a standalone project. So yeah so I think again I think Federica thanks again for suffering through the mute button problems and for making this proposal but I think that again this feels a little bit to me like hyper leisure labs proposal and so I think that the sort of the next steps for this would be to I'll copy you and the stewards of the hyper leisure labs and you know with a link to the process and then I think one of the the stewards of the labs can then sure help you through the process and Elizabeth and you want to volunteer. Okay, thank you. The process is very lightweight. Yes, yes. Okay thank you very much Federica. Process to get into the lab. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So do we have time hard to do the white paper working group? It's hard on. Yeah I'm here sorry it took me like three clicks to unmute again. Sure I can go over stuff so sure I posted the update form last night and I was hoping to have the actual final white paper this week but unfortunately it looks like we're still waiting on some marketing committee approvals. There have been a bunch of people on vacation but the long and short story is the white paper is essentially finally done and hopefully everyone should be able to look at it next week. I was going to propose that since the white paper is done the group well we're basically planning on essentially going dormant. It might be worth it to keep the email list around as a lot of people I know like the architecture and identity working groups are are heavily writing papers and it might be good to have sort of expertise from people who have slogged through kind of the the long process of getting a big document from you know from a lot of different people. So I know we don't have a lot of time and we still have some more stuff to do so I guess I'll just open it up to questions. I think most of the stuff I wanted to say is a little document including the kind of funny quote from the from the technical writer. Mark Wagner if you want to jump on the performance and scale working group on Tuesday mornings and at least once and sort of give us some more stories and things to look out for because we're about to get involved with a tech writer. Yeah I don't know that I can make it every morning. I usually have a conflict Tuesday mornings but if you want to if you want me to come one particular morning and discuss it and some of the things that worked and some of the things that didn't I'd be happy to do that. Great thanks I'll follow up with email. Yeah awesome. Well I want to personally you know so thank you Hart and the whole team for you know a great people a couple of great pieces of work and I mean again thanks it's amazing. I'm torn about you know sort of decommissioning the the team because it's been so effective but yeah I can also appreciate that you know now that the work is effectively complete it doesn't necessarily make sense to to sort of keep hanging on unnecessarily. We can always reconstitute the group I suppose if we if we have a need to get in to do another another white paper but I'll just sort of open up by saying thank you. I guess applause is in order. Let's not go that far. Yeah so I was going to propose that basically we our meeting schedule has already dwindled so we'll just I was going to say maybe we we just don't we don't schedule meetings or if we do schedule meetings we schedule them very infrequently but we leave the email list in rocket chat up so that people like Mark who are interested in kind of pulling the expertise from this group or asking questions can still use that as a resource and that if we ever want to I think that's a useful thing I know I've in a past you know when we were when I was doing the web services work we actually did that with I can't remember which one it was we actually kept the working group sort of in a suspended animation state for a couple of years to see if anything else came but nothing else did but it's one way and then all we did was W3C so we had to report annually to Tim Bernish Lee and tell him nothing had happened right and then they finally sort of pulled the plug on it but we could do that we could keep things in place and just sort of go into a dermacy cycle and and remove you temporarily from the quarterly updates yeah I mean I we won't have a ton of things to update obviously but I just want to I want the group to still be a resource for people that are writing their own papers so I want people like Mark to be able to ask like because there have been you know a lot of a lot of very core contributors Mick, Stan, Vipin, Trayvon, you know there are a bunch of other people Nathan, Sean and we've learned a lot about trying to write kind of large-scale things with a lot of people and if you read the the quote in the update at the very bottom from the technical writer it wasn't exactly easy and you know there were a lot of drawbacks but we did learn a lot and hopefully we can we can help others with that knowledge. Okay well thanks again and I unless there's any objections I can I think that that's a fine proposal to sort of leave it as is and so unless there's any objections I think we should just proceed that like I don't think we need a formal vote and yeah and once we're yeah sorry once the marketing committee gets final approval on the uh white paper I'll send it out to everybody. It should be soon there's some conference this weekend they wanted to use it for but there's some I don't understand what's really going on but it should be soon so all right well thanks everybody. Thanks. Thanks to all the members. Thank you. Thank you. All right Nadad I think we're at end of job so thanks everybody and apologies again for the the issues with the call but we'll reconvene again next week with the health care working group update and what was else Roja I think was next. Yep. Okay thanks everyone. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Bye.