 All right. Welcome everybody to the hyper ledger technical steering committee. This call is open to all community participants. Please abide by the antitrust regulations and be respectful of the other contributors. We have very little on the agenda today. There is an update from the project project. When I looked about an hour ago, only a few of us had reviewed the report. Go ahead though and open it up for questions from TSC members or seeking other sort of clarification on that report. Do we have a participant from Iroha on the call. Yes, you do have me Andre and you're going to seems to be here as well and Alice can also help answer questions so we have many people here attending and we're ready to present the update and answer your questions if you have any. Okay, great. So you had listed in the report an issue getting through the DCO, but it looks from the comments yet today that that is resolved. Oh, sorry. I did not. The thing is that we resolved the DCO issue like a day ago. So we created this report before it was resolved and then we added information that it was resolved. But unfortunately, I missed the part that it was still an issue here in the report. I'm sorry I did not delete that one, but it's resolved now. Yes. No apologies needed. That's great that it's resolved. Okay. Questions from anyone else. Hi, this is Arnold. So I have a kind of a general question about hero. I mean, when era had got started, Makoto told us that one of the motivations was actually to be using C++ because he thought there was a much broader set of potential contributors writing C++ and that would be a big advantage over say, you know, fabric, for instance, which was based in C++. So I wonder, you know, if you guys have an opinion at this point, I'm not completely convinced that this was, you know, this actually worked out so well from that point of view. And there may be other factors obviously that come into play that, but you know, I was wondering if you guys have any opinion about that. It may be difficult to comment what was at that point reasonable or not reasonable from, you know, Makoto's point of view, but I see the possibility of being the only platform in C++ to get, you know, contributors and build a community that is skillful in C++ and doesn't have any other platform to collaborate this. If you're asking if this is happening at the moment, the answer is maybe not to the level that you would like to see it happening. I don't know what is the reason for that. Maybe people that are skillful in C++ are not looking into the blockchain at the moment, or they already switched to another language. So this is something that we probably should research a little bit more, but we also discussed I think on one of the previous meetings that maybe some companies are waiting for the first release because otherwise it's difficult for them to justify the, you know, the efforts and the time contributing, contributed to the project. So we are also looking forward what will happen after the first release if some of the companies will jump on board and dedicate some resources. Not sure if this answer your question, but this is from my side, maybe Andrei, who is more active in development itself has an opinion on that. Yeah, hello. I'm not sure I have any more comments regarding the language decision, but from the performance perspective, it has its own potential benefits. Okay. I can maybe add another comment. We are also working now with Polkadot and we are building the runtime environment also in C++. So they also decided that C++ is an interesting addition to the choices that they already have. So now we are adding this to the Polkadot. Okay, thank you. I did want to point out that, you know, we had, we, you, the TSC had set, you know, kind of a mechanical stop against their hitting, or hitting 1.0, which was it was dependent on the DCO conformance. And now that they have DCO conformance, you know, as of a few hours ago. I mean, they have officially hit 1.0. So I would just like to say, you know, thank you for the Aroha team for working closely with LFIT to get the DCO conformance issue resolved and congratulations on hitting 1.0. Yes, congratulations. Yeah, congrats again. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. Arno, thanks for that question too. I think it's helpful if we start looking retrospectively in each of these projects for technical assumptions that we made up front and start to, you know, extract some of that learning so that we evolve how we're approaching the projects. You know, Dan, that brings up a really interesting set of questions we should plug into, like our project readiness and our metrics, which is maybe some questions towards developers, new developers who join Hyperledger. And see if we can judge sort of like how high the bar is based on whatever language the project is based on. It would be interesting if we could find some measurements that we could put into the dashboard that we can look at in the future. Yeah, that could be interesting data for us. All right, well, we don't have other previously scheduled agenda topics. I noted that Vipin had already put together the identity update. It looked like some of us that had an opportunity to look through that. Vipin, I don't want to put you on the spot, but if you would like to take questions today, we can do that otherwise we can do that as scheduled next week. I can take questions. Great. So I'm going to go ahead and click that report back open on my end. Looks like about half of us have had a chance to take a look at that. Are there any questions from those who have. Hi, Vipin. And I know we've discussed this on PSWG calls as well and Chris has been involved in the discussions. And maybe to sort of hijack your report. But one of the things Ryan and I are looking at and trying to lead is a discussion on how we maintain and increase participation and working group sigs and projects in general. And one of the things I think you've done that's great as you're off trying to run two meetings, basically the same meeting but two different time slots on the same day to try to bring in people from all around the world. Do you want to talk about that a little bit. Yeah, you know, basically we've had problems with the membership, the participation in sigs. There have been a lot of emails back and forth about the reasons for that, in particular in identity working group case, I think it is because of the take off of Iroha, I mean, sorry, Indy and the work in the agents subgroup and the sovereign calls and all that, because they do deal with the identity topic. But I think a crucial element is missing there which is the legacy systems topic on identity and the bridges that can be built between the legacy systems and SSI which we have been always sort of pursuing. But me that as it may, in the sense that we are seeing less of participation. So my aim in creating the two time slots was to create one that is more friendly to the APAC region. There are, you know, I have run now three days, you know, three calls with, you know, with two time slots. I noticed one strange thing that is the participation in the regular call increased. And the participation in the second call remains low but steady, meaning there are people from Australia, Japan and Hong Kong and so on, that call in which who normally not have called in but the numbers are low. So I've been trying to promote it on both India Community Working Group and on China, TWG China, but I haven't seen any participation from participants there. What I'm wondering is, you know, how can we increase the participation and make meaningful contributions to the identity working group paper and get it towards completion with increased participation from the APAC region. So this is the reason for my second call. And it has had limited success. And, you know, like I said, still only in the third, third call, but I believe that we should try to get more participation by by the Linux Foundation or some, you know, the people there reaching out to the companies that are based primarily there in the APAC region. And I'm also wondering whether, you know, we had for just in the last call we had reps from Iroha and from IBM, I mean, from Hyperlegia Fabric who might contribute a little more into the paper. So this is, you know, my experience so far has been it is overall positive. And I will continue this exercise. Chris says this is a sort of an iron man thing, you know, having two calls on the same agenda, same day. Anyway. Yeah, that's great. Thanks for the additional one. Yeah, so I think, you know, it kind of highlights though that and, you know, to a certain extent, you know, this is what Brian has been saying along but, you know, I think that, you know, just as we do with, you know, the open source side of things. I think especially when you're collaborating on the deliverable, you know, and maybe a little bit more email back and forth and or, you know, discussion in the margin of Google Doc or something like that is probably, you know, the way to do the collaboration and then when you need to sort of get in and have a tighter discussion maybe use that for a call but I, you know, I think that, you know, calls can be useful but by the same token, you know, and, you know, Mark, you know, we're struggling a little bit, you know, in the PWP, SWG to, you know, not lose, you know, participation as well and trying to figure out, you know, how best to sort of move forward but you know, it could be just, you know, we need to find better ways of asynchronously working together. We do have that facility in the document. In fact, we have had a lot of comments in the document. In fact, we have several contributions over the last couple of months in the document, some very interesting ones. The other, the flip side to this whole document thing is that we've had some rogue deletions which I've not been able to pinpoint on any particular individual. Maybe it is just a fat-fingering thing but now I've just locked it down for only for comments and for suggestions which then I will incorporate into the document but maybe there is a way to have a bio-media or even use GitHub for this purpose but we have had extensive comments on the document. I have tried to look at the document and look at the side. We have not been resolving many of them as rapidly as we should because of the participation points and there is also a debate about exactly what is the purpose of the working group, right? This document is one thing but to provide a forum for discussion about identity matters that are not only in projects but also from the outside, the interesting aspects of it so that everybody can be developers who are not identity specialists or people who are not identity specialists can listen to those presentations and make adjustments in their outlook. Plus, we are sponsoring also the agent-to-agent protocol. In fact, we have excellent presentation yesterday from Daniel Hardman on agent-to-agent which I haven't put in this update but he showed up on two occasions since he spoke about this. So we have this thing, what is the work product of the group? Yes, it should be this document but also it should be providing this forum for bridging the identity topic. I think Nathan has been trying to interject here for a while. Yes, so that's actually a good lead into my question. The identity working group has been a really good bridge in some of these communities outside of Hyperledger. Can you comment a little bit about how the partnership with the Ethereum Enterprise Alliance has worked with respect to identity and also anything that you could say about the new DF2.0 kind of reorganization work that's going on over at the Conventional Identity Foundation? Yes, we had a demo of the DIFF Universal Resolver. We had a demo last week and I ran the demo without knowing, I was just able to log into the DF Universal Resolver and do that demo. So that is one aspect of things and I'm keeping a close watch on that as well as the credentials community group. I do also look at your indie exchanges. So I'm trying to condense all that into this particular, as far as into this working group. As far as your question about EEA, we had a couple of meetings where we had bridges to them, but we seem to have lost a little bit of momentum there. And I did speak with someone yesterday who wanted to talk to me about how we can further collaborate and what the feedbacks are on the EEA because EEA is again a membership only organization and you can't just show up for those calls. You have to be either invited or have some kind of a link to that invite. The other way, of course, is completely open and proven has been on several calls and we did talk about the implementation of SSI in sovereign countries and what are the limitations and whether PII should be on the ledger or off the ledger. There were several comments about that and that actually helps people who are actually working on this stuff. In particular, I had someone named Moushmi Chatterjee who was there on that call and she is working on that particular topic and was helped by Ruben's comments because we all know that there is a prescription on putting PI on the chain even if it's encrypted. So what are the different ways in which we can do that? Anyway, without going into the particulars, yeah, please. Okay, Mr. Hughesby. Yeah, hey, so I wanted to point out that I'm trying something new with regards to async collaboration for the CICD committee. Our wiki tightly integrates with JIRA and well actually before I describe it, I did want to call out, Sean Amundsen is a really big proponent of using the Git process for documentation and I'm going to have to say I agree with him on this one. It solves a lot of the problems Vipin was talking about with rogue deletes and trying to track the life cycle of a shared document everybody's working on. So I'm trying to do sort of a middle road instead of going straight to GitHub. I'm using our wiki for this. There's a private space for the CICD committee that all the committee members can see but nobody else can see and we have a number of documents in there we're working on and I'm using the integration between Confluence and JIRA to create tasks for people as they volunteer for things on the wiki side they look like tickable check, checklists that are assigned to certain people and those are actually linked to JIRA tasks on the JIRA so that when they get checked off they get closed on JIRA and the wiki provides history for edits, collaborative editing so we can all jump into a document on a meeting. We haven't done this yet but I'm planning to tomorrow in the CICD committee meeting we'll jump into a document all start editing and all that stuff and then it all gets published to the wiki and yeah I'm hoping that this turns out to be a better way to collaborate. We have the history mechanism through the wiki too so if there's rogue deletes or whatever we can just roll stuff back. Just throwing that out there for everybody. Everybody has a personal space on our wiki in which you can invite other people in to collaborate on things and I believe you can create private spaces. I'm not entirely sure what the standard capabilities are for just normal community members. I'll have to look at that but I know that you have a personal space at least that can function as a private space and you can quickly set one of those up but if there's any of the working groups or anything like that that wants to work in private until something's ready to present talk to me or Ryan we'll see what we can do about setting up private spaces. I kind of want to avoid the proliferation of private spaces but if that turns out to be a good way of working I'm sure we'll entertain it. I'm just trying it out on this to see if it works. So Dave your working group is well hidden. Yes because it's not a working group it's a committee and we're trying to produce a document and we wanted to like avoid it. There's no way to find it. I know that. It's on purpose. The committee knows where it is and see how that's transparent and then the spirit will talk about it. Exactly. I mean this is the biggest problem right. Google Doc link is a very open way to do this. Otherwise you have to have GitHub IDs all kinds of other stuff. LFID. You know we just we just find I mean you know if we are come to a certain maturity in the document when we don't want people to start. So there might be a dual pronged approach in the beginning you leave it open and then you start closing it off because you have the document at a certain level of maturity. The collaborative editing has been you know has been done by us in fact in meeting notes specifically for the architecture working group and Ursa and others. And we do see each of those edits but only if you're also in edit mode. It's it's fine. I mean you know all these methods do work and we are in the you know in a maturation process. So it's good to talk about all the different alternatives as they come up. Okay. Great. So I think we have kind of gotten started to digress into document editing techniques. So thank you for the update vipin. One of their thought is you might want to reach out to Julian Gordon to address the impact questions that you raised. Julian is going to be Julian's taken some personal time off. So reach out to the community architects team. We have an alias for that community dash architects and hyperlady.org. And we'll try to put you in touch with people who work in Julian's office and we'll try to make that connection for you. And I see David has his hand up. Oh I just wanted to address what Chris's point was. Yes, we are keeping that committee private or the documents private but the committee participation is still open. So if anybody's curious about what we're working on and wants to participate. Send me an email and I'll get you all hooked up into the committee and you can come in and join the meetings and stuff. I think what I wanted to avoid was having too many chickens. I wanted to have only pigs. So anybody who wants to participate can still participate. But I wanted to eliminate like sort of the drive by fights and stuff because we have a deadline and I wanted to keep this focus and drive forward quickly, like just gathering requirements and saying this is what we're going to. This is this is what we want to recommend. I don't know if the TSC prefer the discussion. So, but I don't know that I'm correct if the TSC says don't make private spaces on the wiki, I will follow that directly. So maybe we should bring this up for discussion next week. Or today. So one other thing I think that would be important relativity identity working group to mention the technical steering committee which is there's an organization called the decentralized identity foundation. That with the joint operating agreement organization that Microsoft has previously sponsored moving over to the Linux foundation is kind of migrating into the Linux foundation that process is kind of underway. And in conjunction with that they're looking to figure out how to open up their development process and figure out how to better sponsor some of their projects. So there's some interesting collaboration opportunities or perhaps some competition in terms of the open source code engagements around decentralized identity that are opening up this week and next week in the run up to the internet identity workshop. So, if any of your organizations have been engaged with the decentralized identity foundation, or are involved at all in indie and some of the other side projects that are available. It might be a good time to pay some attention to what's going on over there at this. All right. Thanks, Nathan. Yeah, just one suggestion on how to promote the meetings for the China area. So for the TTC there's a mail list. So I would suggest if you can put the event information there in advance, there may call more people to attend the meeting if they're interested. Yeah, I have only been posting in the rocket chat channels. I guess I should also include the the other other vectors. Yeah, I see that but you know the rocket chat is not that active. Yeah, and I have to translate many of that stuff. Anyway, in order to understand what you guys are talking about anyway. Yeah, and we thanks for your effort. No problem. And can you remind me what the status of rocket chat is in PRC? Is it accessible? Well, it is accessible but sometimes it's slow to access and yeah, you know, I see people prefer to use some mobile app like the WeChat for the online chatting, but they do not prefer the rocket chat. And yeah, so I would suggest that the mail is still the first way to promote the news. Okay, thanks. All right, well that is the the end of the official agenda for today. It looks like next week though we're going to have a much fuller agenda. We'll be looking forward to something here in the mail list from Dave Huesby. We're going to start tomorrow on project readiness. So expect some discussion on that. And there will be one to two other proposals. One proposal has hit the mailing list for transaction API, and then the Aries proposal from Nathan, I believe is not yet been mailed. So we've got two other backlog items for project engagement and the ambassador's reboot and I don't think we have any immediate updates scheduled for those. All right, unless there's any pressing item that didn't make it onto the agenda this morning, we'll give a minute for that. And then we will just wrap up once, going twice. All right, thank you for everybody's time and look forward to discussion continuing on the mail list and chat as usual and see everybody next week. Thanks.