 Alright, antitrust policy notice, please review the information there Moving into the agenda a couple topics just quick FYI on hackfest planning Then we will finalize the discussion for the workgroup's proposal Hyperledger composer request to go 1.0 and then after that the quarterly project updates and the quarterly workgroup updates So the first thing just a quick reminder Is next hackfest June 27th or 29th in Amsterdam registration information is in the Agenda in all the minutes and then last week we decided October 3rd and 4th. We would have the hack the other hackfest piggybacked on to hyperledger member summit in Montreal, so that'll be October 3rd and 4th That's all there With that Brian or Tracy. Did you want to kick off continuing the workgroup proposal discussion? Well, I think we're converging pretty much to something that matches the Discussion last week and kind of where we ended off Tracy sent an update You know without quorum, I guess we're not really ready to vote to accept it but Maybe you'll see if there's you know five minutes worth of any last Comments or questions, you know so we can see this up either for a vote next week or maybe even one over over email Any any other thoughts from those who had a chance to read Tracy's message or look at the document today? Yeah, so I actually looked at it. I think it's fine works for me Yeah, and I think that you may have watching is a good idea Okay So so sorry, I'll let anybody else speak Okay, well in time. Maybe what we do is tee up a vote over email for this and maybe for a composer to or any other It looks like that's the only other vote that we would have taken this week So if it turns out they were ready to vote on composer we can combine them into to one vote but But there at least let's let's tape a vote over email for this Following the call. All right, sounds good. Yeah Was there a question from someone else there? Yeah, sorry, how short of quorum are we this stand? We're missing two still unless I know Ben and Chris are out so unless Greg Hart or Nathan have joined and It sounds like no and doesn't look like it in the tendu list either. All right, so with that then we'll get the email vote teed up Otherwise onward to hyperledger composer to continue the discussion so Simon Caroline or Anyone else from the composer team? Hi, it's Simon here. I wasn't on the call last week I was off on vacation, but I believe there might have been some technical questions from last week that needed answering Nate just joined by the way Got it. Thank you Hey there, I think hey Simon If I recall the conversation from last week, I think there were a couple of concerns about Where about licensing as well as about a security scan and I think the third was a question from Dan about Kind of you know, where where the project is in terms of looking forward to a future of being portable to other DLT's Is that do I recall the right three outstanding last week? That would be an interesting discussion on other DLT's I think I was just trying to understand The feature completeness as far as urgency to go to a 1.0 and then actually subsequent to that I had spoken to a couple other people who had Express some concern that that when we created When we're looking at what the rules were for whether a project should be active or not Seemed like maybe the general consensus was that in most cases a project should be active But there's some corner cases where we might want to allow for Small projects that would not have Ever have the opportunity for significant diversity to become To to be able to do a major Yeah, yeah, and so I think that for for some of us It seems like composer is a very popular project that has a lot of resources behind it and so the Kind of the direction that that I was going was that it would be nice if composer could take some time to continue to develop that community and fulfill all of the Active prerequisites and then come back for for 1.0 Approval from the TSC Okay, you thought is it might not meet one of those edge cases where we'd approve a 1.0 before graduation from the incubator Right, and I'm not sure if if everybody's on who TSC who had Had some of these some of these initial ideas about what what that criteria meant and and why we Would allow for for certain edge cases. So I won't be able to speak for people that aren't here, but that was definitely the In thinking about this a little bit further in what cases would we want to facilitate a project going to make a production release announcement when Sorry conflict in call coming in here So in what cases would we facilitate a project to do a major release when it was not yet considered active under the The open source governance rules that we'd set up The other thought that I had here is it looks like composers just very very close to being able to be active They have maintainers from two organizations And they have a significant installed user base. That's a lot of folks are depending on they seem to have really good support of the different hack fests in terms of people coming to learn and use their software and so If we if they do a 1.0 without going active It seems like that might take some of the pressure off Where they're so close to be able to go active it might be like really good thing for for the project to to get that Status at the same time Were there new folks who are concerned about Composer not being able to reach or graduate from the incubator. You know in the TSE Well, the composer project is very popular in the community and Currently, there is no hard to requirement that when the project go to One dollar release How to be integrated and work together with other projects? But I would think it will be a better thing if a composer can Focus more on to be integration with other harbinger projects like Besides the fabric likes the sawtooth and Cello and also other projects. There are great opportunities to work together actually Just just a quick note that we are at quorum now It's not really not really concerned, but just to say it's not clear to me So what happened with the list so we use composer a lot, but we don't use it like in production, right? We use it to prototype We use it as a actually a development tool, right? We show somebody how the network is gonna look like once they have a I don't know the business logic right that the chain called kind of deployed Right, so we don't have to spend a lot of time on kind of it's clear What's the assets or the participants and kind of what is the model? So we use it for development, right? But what happened is that the less version of composer really broke a lot of the previous API So we had to change a lot of things with zero sixteen nineteen like just the latest cut so I don't know I Don't know if we have any restrictions Or enforcement of any API stability with one point zero I remember we committed to that in in fabric one point zero like when we release it and before that When we did the release candidate and I said I don't want to release the release candidate before we lock the API and everybody says Okay, the API is not gonna change Are we gonna enforce something like that or we want to keep it free even though it's a one-zero it's not a concern It's just a question Composer team right and to look the API too early, right? So Yeah, I can answer that so we have been following semantic versioning rules We've been bumping up the middle number every time we make a breaking API change Yeah, there were a lot of breaking IP API changes between 16 and 19 and a lot of that Due to the rework we did to pick up the JavaScript chain code support in abracer one point one And a lot of those changes will also required for us to be production ready to move from that POC stage Which as you say we'd be mostly used for so far and but now now we've got the native no JS execution We feel that composer projects can be used in production You know, but the audio you feel that the API now is more stable. Are you happy to do that? Or you want to keep it open still so when we vote I Don't want to force you into it. You know, if you're if you say that you may still have more changes I just don't want you to be obliged to keep this API That's what I have to say, right? We committed in fabric one zero, but it didn't come automatically We didn't inherit it from the one zero status, right? Yeah, no, I am happy that if we move to one point zero the API would be stable Okay, okay, because that's another argument right for going why zero maybe for four for people without consent, okay You know, I'm not on the TSC, but my personal take would be that You know the composer team it seems ready for one dot oh and we should evaluate whether this release is ready for one Dotto if we feel the graduation is imminent or or that it's close to being offered. We could vote separately on that pretty soon I I you know, it's cleanest obviously one dottos go out from from graduated projects, but I feel a sense of You know momentum behind us that that would be nice to Recognize and then move forward on but uh unless there is a strong reason not to And I like the questions about API stability and what more we can do to grow the the user community and and the deployment profiles of it But uh, but I think we should just think about what are the criteria for a one-dotto release? I And does it doesn't meet those criteria? This is I think our first Time we've considered, you know, approving a one-dotto release since changing the policy So it's natural that we feel our way through this, but I Wouldn't I wouldn't say changing the policy. We didn't have one before but That's a change that's a delta For zero to one as people do so So so I you know from my point of view I at least I listen to Dan and I'm a bit surprised by the way you characterize the You know this possibility of releasing one zero because I don't think we use terms like oh Small projects or anything like this when we're talking about this for me It was really a matter of okay We're separating the the maturity of the community which is you know labeled with those terms of you know status whether you're in incubation or Active project With regard to the operation of the project, you know the test all this stuff Which talked about from the quality of the product the software they're developing and so the release the number One-zero release for me really should be mostly Primarily, you know focusing on the quality of the software and whether it's stable enough whether it you know it It fulfills a set of requirements that seems reasonable that has been said by the community As a goal and you know and as such it it makes sense to have a one-zero release I think Jonathan's question on the API is right on that's the kind of things we should consider But so I would really prefer if we kept those two things separated and you know We I think I said I was the one who said in a way We would be like penalizing them twice if we said you can't have a one-zero release because you didn't reach The community criteria of I think you know broad participation to be active So I think it's cleaner to separate those two And you know now speaking from an IBM point of view I can tell you the the pressure internally to move to active is not going to lessen because They really a composer team really is a one-zero version. I can guarantee you that yeah, I think there was probably a couple different views on What what was important out of the the active process in that would relate to a Production release and what that would mean from a hyper ledger perspective versus say a company perspective and Definitely one of one of the viewpoints that had arisen in that conversation was Not wanting to double double penalize a project and in one aspect of that is One aspect of that that had been raised was whether the size of the project was something that would never really arise to have a large Population or a diverse population of maintainers and so it would be in stuck in a in a catch 22 something that it could never really resolve And so I'm a little bit one of the things that that's coming to mind for me is alright So this is the first project to to come forward after we've we've established Try to establish some policy about what is the the community aspect behind a 1.0 release So if the very first project we get is a project that is Already, you know well resourced project from from a large company That has popularity that's closely associated with an already popular project it seems like it's at a really good place to be able to develop community and Seems like the case then that We should give that project the time to develop that community Which probably shouldn't take much longer and then be in a position that when it does release It's not in that condition that That that these community policies are meant to To help guard against that you've got a you know a single vendor kind of situation How do I and other members the TSE feel do they feel like I? They would be they The question is open enough to be that it's not worth a vote today or it's worth a vote but doubling down on graduating composer from incubator to avoid and and and perhaps applying this going forward to a Future projects that are likely to hit a 1.0 before their graduation Or or do we want to serialize this and require graduation for a composer first? Because of for the reason Stan mentioned I guess I may have one question for for Simon You know speaking but so you know it's funny because when I am asking myself Yeah Wait, I think Kelly was speaking. Sorry. Yeah. Sorry. I just had a question just around You know, what do you see is the the barrier? I guess to getting that community because it does seem like composer is one of if not the most downloaded Hyperledger project at least from you know Docker hub statistics So I'm just kind of curious if their barriers there that maybe the TSE could help resolve or their community activities that We should be driving more to inspire That sort of contribution So as you say, we've got plenty of users And we've got very active rocket chat channels around people using composer What we don't have is people coming to the composer team and saying hey, I'd like to work on this or Hey, I'd like to think about working on this feature or I'm just looking for something to contribute to composer Could you help us find help me find something what we are getting is doc fixes and Little bits that are just popping up and to the side But no one's really coming and interacting with us to start looking at big pieces of feature work, I guess And I don't know why that is as far as I can see we're not doing anything wrong On the community front and we're being quite open with our plans Through github. We have weekly community calls and those are scheduled at two different times to cater for different time zones But those are poorly attended Yeah, I don't know what else we could do I'd welcome any Concrete suggestions about what we could do to open up to a wider range of contributors So I can tell you just a little bit just because you asked like so candidly, right? I think I think we are all operating in a very weird environment You know it's like this enterprise space is new to me even though I work for big conglomerates before and stuff But running a business in this place is kind of strange So we've done a lot of work for some big organization and we really wanted to contribute it back They didn't want it said look we paid for it. It's ours You just like we just supported for them right if they have some bugs But they don't want to come back which is a shame for us because we could got the visibility you could make composer better Etc. Etc. So now they have a version of composer that is better and to be honest in 019 it stopped working for them because they couldn't get the latest cut from you and they asked us to do more work for them So it's kind of I don't understand this mentality yet So when you're asking me why people are not going to be back. Honestly, I don't understand it I think most organizations in enterprise are still not fully aligned With a business revenue or business model that is Still utilizing and making the most out of the open-sets environment So they it's strange for me too. I'm telling you Simon just just just to share But I don't understand why people don't contribute to especially not to a development tool, right Tools that are more graphical do Present a greater barrier to bring people into the core contributor status I mean, you see this with the Mozilla browser Firefox web browser on Mozilla project where the project would not have succeeded as a Distributed multi-vendor open-source project is needed to pay a thousand developers full-time from the Mozilla corporation, right? So it's there is a bigger hurdle there and I think You know, perhaps more we can do doing it don't make foundation to help people cross that chasm I don't know I just I worry a bit that we're conflating these two questions about growing the community versus approving a 1.0 and I think we Again, I'm not I'm not the TSE. I'm trying to just play Chris's role here that shepherd us forward through the agenda But I think in general we should be careful when we create new rules New requirements on the project that we be clear about when and how we approve the, you know subjective questions like this, you know, I You know the more bureaucracy we add to the process the harder it might be for projects to feel like This is a great environment So I feel like we should try to be as narrow as possible in this question is composer ready for 1.0 or not And I respect this is our first time pondering this question And and we need to feel our way through but we should try to find a template repeatable kind of criteria by which we get the next Submission and the next mission. It's much clearer for those teams one of the criteria They have to hit either to release a 1.0 before graduation or after since we're also requiring it of projects that have hit graduation if they're 1.0 approved So so I agree with what Brian just said again I think we should focus on the very question of whether the software qualifies as what we would consider Necessary for 1.0 release. I would be concerned with what Jonathan said not so much about the community aspect Although this is a concern in of itself, but you know, does that mean, you know Composer as it is is not fulfilling requirements from some people out there and they should maybe taken care of before Composer team declares victory 1.0 release, but it's it's we've got to separate that from whether it's active or not Otherwise, we are getting back into the discussion we had before as to whether we want to entertain having 1.0 release in incubation at all Yeah, just finally didn't want to surface the requirements to everybody You know something what am I doing wrong? I don't think they're doing anything wrong So I'm with you are not totally and Simon and Brian I agree It's not like the guys are asking all this. How can we help? What can we do to improve? And and people don't raise any hands and and not asking for more stuff and then they do stuff Yeah, I don't think it's it's prevent, you know, what what can we do? I think the decision to go to 1.0 should be based on code maturity and the ability of the project to support Issues, you know, think of it from a business perspective You know when your company releases a 1.0 product, you know, it's able to handle support of it It's able, you know, the code streets a certain maturity in our case past certain security scans things like that And is it you know, is the project able to support Things as documentation available all of that Well, we've got we've got some other agenda items for this week So again, just playing my process hat do we want to vote on this even if the vote isn't isn't unanimous Or likely to be unanimous this week. Um, or do we want To take some other action offline and come back next week I think it'd be useful to have a vote to see where people stand Not everybody hasn't been speaking up. So I actually would rather wait for Chris But that's my view when I don't it is one vote. We don't we don't need to vote for whether we should vote Oh too bad what are rules for voting? If if quorum if quorum if it's you can have a vote But Chris had indicated previously his support for approval for this So Brian one of the things I was trying to fair it out here not to belabor this was in in earlier discussions about the importance of the the community aspect I had understood Maybe a little different interpretation from from what it sounded like I was just hearing And so if you could just describe a little bit more your thoughts on the the The community breath behind a project and that's relationship with a 1.0. I think I would find that helped You're asking me are you asking simon specifically about composer? I'm asking you specifically About the criteria for when a project graduates from the incubator Well about the the relationship between that and and 1.0 said Maybe into some things and in the past to being more that There was there should be a heavier weight on on community breath yeah, so I I actually would if I were on the tsc I would not have voted for the the rule that have the tsc approve a 1.0 release whether it was an incubation or active partly to try to separate these issues out I might have required it to graduate from the incubator first Before being allowed to issue a 1.0 release at their discretion Because I do think it's important for You know the health of the community to be formally recognized by the tsc for this to be Yeah, you know, this is a viable thing. This is not two people Or one one person's, you know, kind of fantasy project. This is something that You know, this is a an effort that has more than one company involved has more than two developers involved And it should be a signal to the world that you know, they've they've they're using the tools in the right way And this is worth people's time and attention and to some degree we might expect that a lot of people don't Want to climb that contributor curve of that burning curve until they see that signal that the project has hit That graduation status, you know, that it's kind of got the training wheels off or whatever And so just like we saw with sawtooth and with fabric hitting 1.0 is also a time when More people come into the project. They start using it and by sheer, you know, virtue of numbers start You know getting into the covers and and and contributing so I You know, I Accept the idea of being able to release the 1.0 before hitting a graduation That's fine with me. I just I go back to if we are going to institute rules and processes We need to be as objective as possible in our implementation of them. Otherwise, it's going to be a very frustrating experience for projects coming through Coming through the the hoops that we put put them through So I agree with that and I think the practical way to look at it is to look at the list of execute area for the for the active status and I thought we pretty much agreed that Maybe somebody could release a 1.0 version if they they met if they meet all the criteria except for the community right And it's you know, I haven't checked to to see if the the map went by one But I thought that in Simon's email. He pretty much tried to address those points Simon tell me if I'm wrong there, but yeah, so I believe we've met all of the requirements for active status Apart from the community. We are cleaning up some licensed stuff at the moment with Tracy We've requested the security audit and I think that's going to be kicked off in May. So The points that aren't complete us are certainly in hand Yeah, in fact, we kind of left that to the side in this conversation But uh on the license Status stuff. Um, is there anything that's going to require just typically for previous projects Even when it's been something completely, you know, benign like bringing in MIT license code We've still required a approval from the governing board actually Just because the stuff that comes in under MIT still has a tiny bit of patent risk to Stuff under other licenses, you know, et cetera. So typically for both sawtooth and for fabric We have required a legal review and then and then a approval by the governing board I know the lab ladder ladder step hasn't been done. So are we Is this something that would hold up approval for a 1.0? Anyway, it's just kind of my question Uh on on the legal front from what I've seen most of it is just files without license headers. Um, so we're We're adding in automation to add the license headers in Um, I think there are a couple of files with the wrong license that we pulled into For testing rather than actually part of the code And we need to do something about those whether it's just remove them and use our own test files or seek approval But uh from a timeline point of view, I wouldn't have thought we'd be able to go 1.0 until we had the security audit done Is that correct? Yes, yes, that's correct So so this is very close to yeah, but yeah We're gonna be looking at end of may ish at the earliest then I would guess okay, well Does it make sense thing to to actually defer this vote to? um that point I mean I I But I thought we were like voting on what would be an imminent release, you know We'd vote and then prove a tarball would show up And and and you'd all begin working on 1.1, right? Um, I or are we Approving here something that still would would be end of may before it would Be released as and tagged as a as 1.0 I was under the impression. We needed the approval to get the approval for the security audit, which we need to go Yeah, yeah, yes That's correct That's right. That's how it came up Yeah, Dave wrote that up, right? He said do we want to spend money on something that's not You know going to 1.0. Yeah This is how we started like a more than months ago, right? We said yes We want to allocate the resources and then we said, okay, let's take a closer look and then we spent some time and So please tell me we are moving forward because I just signed the paperwork on the security Okay, and that and that was news to me too. I mean we do presume that I mean we've we've done this with the roja, for example And you know any other project out there that that signals to us as hyperlature staff that they are ready You know or that a 1.0 releases on the horizon, you know, we we Start the process anyways. Um, so Uh, I didn't realize that he had discussed adding that step in the process as well to to turn on the security scan. So Yeah, it's happening. I I was doing it for comedic effect. Um This is good if we delay it a little bit because we do want to do it before 1.0 So sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off there, brian. We just And there are about a hundred files that we'll need to go through the legal committee and the governing board as well for approval for licensing So wearing my chris hat Um, I kind of you know, I mean not not that I'm you know official dc chair or whatever but I for this call But I think I'm carrying that. Um I I kind of feel like we can we can defer this vote Um and come back closer to those steps in the process being done and in the meantime Let's let's as a as a tfc think offline about ways that we can help bring more developers into the composer community And and see if we can get some closure on some of those issues just to Or maybe even look at graduation from the incubator in the meantime To address address those concerns Uh, but uh, but it seems like this train is moving forward with composure 1.0 To do the to do the security scan to do the the license request And uh, uh, and we can come back for final approval of the 1.0 release sometime in may So make sense That makes sense to me Yeah, same here. All right. I wanted to defend the first place. Yes Sounds good. Yeah, I agree Okay, and can we clarify that projects don't need approval from the psv before starting the security scan or the license review Whenever they go to a 1.0 Or are in the process of moving towards the 1.0 release Yeah, I mean, I feel like it's very with it. Of course. Yeah, we we were given a task But yeah, sure. Sure. Of course If you guys are happy with that then we'll we'll follow that We can definitely be more aggressive with security scanning at 1.0 Yeah, I have no objection to that. I think it's good to get the scans done earlier than later more chance to fix things It's mainly just about trying to have it You know, the right number of rules, you know, and the right number of steps in this process. So so just trying to Yeah, avoid adding one more one more step one more No, also in a way, you know, we can look at the security audit report as also Some form of evaluating The quality of the code in the maturity, right? So it may not be a bad thing We don't need like to trigger happy on the budget But in in some cases, it makes sense to to have more more eyes looking at the code, right? Yeah, so I definitely agree with Jonathan Okay, and I do like the fact that there's signaling to the tsc that a 1.0 release is on the horizon too So that's great for us to know collectively and that's what I think Okay, should we move on to um, actually if we still have quorum do we want to revisit? the approval for the Working group template. Yeah, I think we should do that quick Yep So going back to that it sounded like from those on the call. There were no concerns. No objections So just stopping for a quick second to make sure that's still the case I'm definitely in favor of it. It looks good. All right. Uh, so quick vote all in favor of the tsc. Please say I Hi Hi Any abstaining any opposed? All right, that passes unanimously Great On the wiki then Great And just a just a compliment to brian and tracy for pulling all this together. It's been a little bit of work But the result looks really good Thanks. Thanks. So in the remaining um 16 minutes We have two two more two reports to consider so why don't we dive and just dive into the first Which would be So I I can definitely go but I do know that we have had Mark on the the docket for the last few weeks For the the performance working group update so it might be fair to let him go first Okay Mark would you like to go? Sure. Thanks Dan. So um performance and scale working group. I've shared The link here and I won't read it. I'll go through it real quick Um, our main task has been working on a metrics document. Um Which sounds easy until you get in and try to define things like what a transaction is and across multiple blockchain implementations of dlt implementations um So it's been a great learning experience for me and I think for others um For as far as health the there's a core group of about eight to 12 regular participants. Um, we're spread across the globe and many different companies Three or four two or three people at least from academia as well who are um participating members and uh There's some info on them down at the very bottom in the additional info section if people are curious um Let's see here Um, you know, we've reached out across several other groups outside of hyper ledger And they've read our preliminary stuff and and the feedback is it looks basically like what theirs does Um, so we're also looking to collaborate with other groups wherever we can. I think that was one of the Not directives but one of the wishes of the tsc when we formed the group was that this isn't just a hyper ledger thing This is you know, ideally going to work across The industry to see where we can get help and we'll get to that a little bit more Um When we felt the time was right, we've been working with a caliper project Um, and they've been you know very active in our work and it's been good to have them because They can go off and implement you know what we were saying and Give some examples based on their working experience um, but you know caliper was recently approved by the tsc and uh So, you know, we have something that can start testing some of this now right away As far as issues, there's no major issues at this time. Um I think like most of the other working groups that I've heard You know, the progress tends to be slower than desired on getting the documentation written or the documents written Um, I will note that you know, I've been involved with spec and and this process is actually much quicker than what I've been involved with the spec on uh Spec ver and spec cloud Um one thought I didn't know Um, I know personally I I hate writing English Um, or any non computer language and I didn't know I know we have some documentation groups I didn't know if it would make sense to See if there's people in the documentation teams that might want to help Work on some of these documents across the different working groups I'm just a thought out there um, the other thing that has just come up recently and uh You know the possibility of using a large test bed to um test some scale of the blockchains And basically the working group Feels that it's not really our job to go off and be the test arm Um, you know if if the tsc would like to give guidance that it is then you know, we can adjust our views accordingly Um, but rather, you know, we should be involved in helping to in the in test definition auditing etc You know and and definitely feedback from the tsc would be appreciated here um in long term You know, I think if we can cooperate with spec or tpc or organizations like that That would be great as well. So I don't know if there's any discussion people want to have on that right now Mark mark. This is bryan. I'll throw in uh, so from time to time we do find ourselves either with offers of spare hardware for test purposes or with access to test infrastructure and On our side of hyperledger staff We are we'll try to organize those the availability of those resources and access to it We might even be able to find some budget to be able to pay for for for testing and that sort of thing, but uh, um, we would definitely benefit us to have Some community process Where there's some some way of kind of figuring out how do we apportion those test resources and how do we standardize You know and uh, you know when a project shows up and says hey, we'd like to have access to the infrastructure to be able to test some things How do we make sure that that's optimized, right? So if there's anything we can do to help with that or anything that You know anybody in the community we could work with on that. I don't know if it means that This working group or some other group, but uh, it'd be nice to channel that through something community Um, okay. Yeah, let me take that back to the working group and uh, we'll discuss it there Um So overall activity in the past quarter the mailing lists and chat channels tend to be very uh, not active We tend to work outside the meetings and then discuss the work during our calls um At the end of last year, we moved to weekly calls to help speed up the process because the bi-weekly calls You know you'd say oh, I personally I would say oh I can get to that next week and have a week to work on it before the next meeting and then it would turn out I wouldn't get to it the following week either, but With weekly meetings it tends to get done quicker. So After this we're going to start On more workload definitions and guidance as far as running tests things like that to longer range This can become a dlt selection guide for different use cases um The goal here being to list, you know, what we think the key attributes and measurements are for different use cases Figure out how to use this with caliper to work with the consumers to make smarter choices on dlt selection um, and I know I talked with one of the guys from The ethereum alliance And their performance team hasn't started up yet, but I shared with him where we are and uh, so we might actually You know get to work closely with them as well As I mentioned before, you know, it's a very active diverse group of people. Um, you know, we have a couple regulars, um from academia as well and They're infos on the additional information. I don't need to go through that now, but if people want to see that One of the interesting things is amari is uh, I think in america. We'd call it a teaching assistant Or he's an assistant lecturer And he has 200 plus students that he he talks about blockchain. So there might be Some people there, you know out of that pool that we could get to work with some of these areas. Um hyper ledger in general Any questions? Okay. Well, thank you Although If you don't know the answer to that, but do you have a time frame in mind as to when you might have a document that you think would be worth Publishing Um, I am hoping to have it done Within the next two months, I don't know that might be aggressive based on how it's going but at this point we're looking at adding use cases you know, we have the majority of the Definitions there and there's a link to the metrics document if people want to see it But we're looking at, you know, some of the finishing touches. I would view it as You know more definition on use case and workload And adding pictures things like that All right, thank you I don't know if other people on the call from the working group have their thoughts that kid or share as well Okay, well, thank you for your time. Okay No question Then uh, um, Dan do you want to uh, walk us through start to Sure, um I was I was muted there at the end by accident I don't know that I would quite say we're at at the finishing touches point on that document, but I would hope that we're uh, gonna be Basically done with it within the next month or two Like like mark was already saying um So let me grab the the note for the sawtooth update and copy that into chat unless somebody has already done that There we go So I will be brief since we're running low on time here The long and short of it is that sawtooth continues to be healthy we're very Active on all fronts the mail list as usual is is kind of substantially quieter compared to most of the other things which are our chat and Github and stuff like that. So There's no big changes there. We have introduced though from a communications aspect Uh, we've got a couple standing meetings now So we've got uh, I think it's on Mondays and fridays, but I put in the link for the the hyperledger calendar, we've got something that that we sometimes call office hours or The application development forum and that seems to be a It's something that we've just started recently, but it seems to be like it'll be a very well attended thing for people who are trying to spin up distributed applications on sawtooth and and have Questions about Things that they're getting hung up on I think it will become a place for discussing things that are becoming best practices So that's a that's a new thing that that most people are probably not aware of because it's only started within the last week or two um We have released 1.0. I suppose that's bearing the headline, but uh, that's that's kind of old news But I think that happened after the last project update So technically that's news for this project update the 1.0 is out, but actually within the last week. We already released our first point release there for for 102 that's got actually quite a bit of bug fixes and improvements based on the feedback from uh from the first looks at at 1.0 And then we are on track for Or we're in the midst of planning what the 1.1 entails And we're looking at sometime mid-summer for 1.1 And the the two features that come to mind for me, uh, and and other maintainers may have bias towards other features, but the two things that that I'm most focused on are We're doing a lot of performance work Getting getting sawtooth into 1.0 shape was was getting a lot of the the bones in place getting that api solid That that people could rely on and now that we've got that in place We want to We want to remove things that are hidden behind those interfaces that were in python for example And and replace them with more performant languages Uh, and then the second thing that is is close to mine for me is the consensus interface So there again, we're not going to be breaking things from A user's perspective, but what we want to do is provide even more flexibility on consensus algorithms Right now what you can do with with sawtooth is change the consensus on the fly with a running blockchain We've got a handful of of algorithms there But what we want to do is be able to expand that much broader to allow Not just companies, but also academic researchers The ability to to try out new consensus protocols that might have That might have benefits in in one niche or another And so that's uh that new consensus interface is being Designed and developed now and and I would look forward to that being released as part of the 1.1 From the diversity perspective Probably some some increase there we've got One of the things that's going to start to make this a little bit more complex to track is that we are As as the team is growing as the community is growing It's Too hard to have everything in a single repo and we'd already kind of expanded out of that before 1.0 but I see that's not Not not continuing to expand as far as number of repos, but we've definitely exploded that a bit in In the recent months here, so those are wherever there's there's things that are well Encapsulated together that makes sense to be in a separate repository We're going to start doing our maintainership more by by that component maintainer Rather than a kind of a single collective And that is the five-minute version of that update. We'll leave you this with a couple minutes for questions Thanks, Dan. I have a quick question. I know that poet relies on specialized hardware What do people actually use do they use the hardware? Do you they not they don't really care because they're in production and they use simulation What what do they do? Do you know? Uh, so a lot of people use the simulator version So when we when we released a poet we wanted to make sure that there wasn't a vendor dependency on that So the very first way released poet does not require Any specific hardware trusted execution environment? And so that just runs as a simulated enclave That does so without the full Byzantine protections Um, and I guess I don't know off the top of my head what the breakdown is of people that that do go for the full Byzantine protections and then use Use sgx in a production and deployment versus people that are satisfied with What's either weak bft or strong cft? for poet simulator And there hasn't been any sign anybody contributing or working on porting They two different hardware Uh, no, I have not seen that yet If anyone knows of blockchain teams at arm or amd or otherwise Um, uh, I'd be happy to reach out to them or I just don't know. I haven't heard of anybody at those companies And uh, as far as I know that uh, microsoft is doing some uh software based trusted environment Yeah, that's right. They have something called a vsm. I think that is a software based trusted execution By the way, nice progress to sort of Thank you Okay. Well, I will take uh Chris's hat from brian and say that sounds like there's no more questions and we're at the end of job as chris would say so Thank you everyone. All right. Thanks everyone. Thank you. Bye. Bye guys. Bye