 Do it to it. All righty. Okay, Rodrigo, would you like to welcome everybody? Bom dia a todos, é um prazer estar aqui com vocês. Hello everyone. It's a pleasure to be here with you. All right. Obrigado Rodrigo. That is the voice of one of the boot camp contributors that we will be hosting down in Sao Paulo in June 24th and 25th. Is that right, Rodrigo? Yes, that's right. And can part of part of what we're doing here is we're inviting people from the community that aren't necessarily a regular participant on TSC meetings to help cross pollinate what goes on in the community with with the TSC and vice versa. So Rodrigo will be volunteering at the boot camp. And maybe you could give the audience a feeling for what you and your colleagues do with with hyper ledger, irrespective of the boot camp. Thank you Dan. Yes, we're very excited to have him Brazil first ever camp in our region in Latin America, North America. And now we're going through the marketing campaign. It went together as many people as you can to join us in Sao Paulo. So we can reach out for many new contributors as we can. So the community is growing since we did join the project at the end of 2018. We've seen lots of new commerce coming to us and learning a little bit more about hyper ledger. And how he can work with us and how can they help develop the ecosystem of a region. So we're very glad to when we heard that Sao Paulo was going to host the next boot camp. We're glad to help you guys and help the community grow here. Excellent. Thank you for taking some time to help welcome everybody to the meeting today. And do you have a handle on rocket chat if anybody wants to connect with you there? Yes, it's Rod. Very easy, ROD. Pretty easy. All right. Well, thanks again, Rod. Any questions for Rod before we move along? You know how to find him if you would like to. And I hope everybody gets involved to the extent that they can for the boot camp. You'll see that that is updated on the announcements to reach out to Salona. If you have questions, comments, offers to support that. Why would you like to update everybody on the two factor authentication requirements? Sure. So I went through and reached out this number is incorrect. We're down to three people that have right access to the GitHub org without two factor off. So thank you to everybody who's been turning on their two factor off for GitHub. And I, that's where we are. We have three people left. Okay, great. Those people have not, those three people have not made commits for the last calendar year. So they're inactive essentially. Do we know their email addresses? Can we email them directly or how? So two of them. So number one, I reached out to the two of them on rocket chat because I was able to find their handles. And I sent email to one of them who I was able to get his email address. The other one I reached out to on LinkedIn. And he doesn't have an LFID. So, and I've done, I feel like I've done what I can. That's what I've done. No, I mean, then why don't we just pull the trigger then if there's only three and you've done your best effort to reach out to them. Is it, is it within our protocol that, that you could distribute those individuals to TFC so that if we personally know those individuals, we could, we could do that. Otherwise, you know, just go ahead and do just like what Chris said. I mean, there's nothing that keeps them from rejoining, right, and setting to, I mean, that's our policy. If they set two factor off, they can come in in the future. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, at the same time, if all the main contributors already, you know, already have to enable the exposure is very minimal. So, that's true. Yeah, these guys haven't contributed in a year. So, I know I'm on some threads about this I don't recall. Do we already have a thread to the TSC list that says this is going to happen. Yes. Okay. And did you give a timeline in that at all right. Soon. I think we might want to give it another week or so and tell people this is when we're going to do it be ready. I'm fine with that. And you had asked a good question earlier, I know, which was, why doesn't this apply to people who use Garrett. It will soon. And all I can say is soon, I don't have a date. So, at some point soon, to factor off will be required to use LF ID. If you put the TM after the soon, then it's okay. Well, I just hear the air quotes soon. So, what you're saying there then right is that LF it is going to enable to factor off on your LF ID, is that correct. Correct at some point in the future soon. Okay, so and that's out of your control. It is when we switch, when we switch authentication providers, you won't see the old screen anymore. Okay, you'll see on your screen. So, I mean, yeah, then maybe why don't we, can we just take a vote and say let's do it in a week or something. Give him one last warning and yep. I make a proposal. We do it soon. Okay, I, I would like to move the TSE vote that we enable to factor off at the conclusion of the TSE meeting next week to factor off. I'll second that. Yeah, this is specifically for GitHub and the LF ID thing is separate and that will. Right. So this is specifically for the hyper ledger organization hyper ledger labs will come to later. That's another question. So, by the way, yeah, the only people we're missing are Nathan and Silas. Oh, there's Silas is here. Yeah, I was late. Sorry. Okay. So I, I think right moved and I seconded. Great. All in favor. Yeah. Hi. Hi. Any TSE members opposed. TSE members abstaining. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, thanks for doing all that. Right. Just for, for everybody's benefit in the future when we want to have a voting motion, it's much better if we have that written. This one is kind of trivial, so I'm not worried about it, but it's nice to have explicitly in writing what people are. So if we're going to go to the trouble of doing a vote, let's make sure that we've got some explicit text. Sure. For the next item, Solana is in the air. And I think we already kind of covered that the bootcamp is coming up. Yep. So let's move on to RFC. Alrighty. So, again, we've got the governing board is, is looking at 2020 direction and they want input from the technical community. So that's what I'm working to channel to them. There is a link there to the wiki. It's pretty broad, the kind of feedback that we're looking for, but do put some thought into the rationale will help us understand it when we try to upstream that to the board. And it looks like we also have a heads up that there is a US holiday on the 4th of July. I think a lot of the participants will be out for. And that brings us up to the first discussion topic, the greenhouse graphic, which Brian circulated on Brian, would you like to speak about that. And I don't have to repeat what I said on the list. I just try to set a context for it, which is, you know, the most important thing we're trying to solve for is the fact that the existing graphic, you know, to which we've been adding logos as they as the projects have been started is, you know, growing kind of unwieldy. And I was finding that the term framework for for things like grid wasn't quite right. And so the most important thing was to update that graphic in such a way that it would be would make a little bit more sense. And, and, you know, eventually if we had 200 projects, obviously a big NASCAR style kind of logo or screen won't work. But I did want to look at kind of updating the taxonomy, just one one hair. It was not to try to say this is the only kind of map that could be drawn or that there aren't better ways, such as the CNCF trail map or the way that some other projects might represent them. Or at some point maybe we do just get so big that like Apache or others, it's just a big list. But for the time being, I find it very useful that just existing greenhouse graphic when giving a talk about hyper ledger just to say here's the kinds of things going on here are the kinds of communities we have. You've heard of fabric perhaps you've perhaps have heard of sawtooth or indie here's here's really everything else going on. And I, you know, then and then to dive deep into each one of them, you know, as time allows. But what we were hoping was just kind of a, you know, that the TSC would see this as a gradual improvement and that, you know, absolutely the taxonomy was the first stab and could be changed the most and we it's always always, always tough to try to get projects to be comfortable with kind of how they're positioned. And so very much wanted to work with TSC on positioning and the taxonomy right. But not to forestall conversations but other ways to look at the structure of our community. And how well engaged would you say that the marketing committee has been with working on that. So that the actual graphic redesign was something that we had our in house at the Linux foundation graphic designer do the taxonomy was something that frankly I took an initial stab at, and said let's go with this take it to the TSC and see what they think. Then we did consult with Dana pray and Alyssa warley about it as well just to see if they have that inputs. Dan by the way is the guy who came up with the word hyper ledger. I started a company called hyper ledger there was acquired by digital asset, and then that name was part of DA's contribution at the beginning of the hyper ledger project. So, partly, you know, I mean he's been a great participant he might even be here on the call I'm not sure. No, but anyways, so it wasn't it wasn't something that we like broadcast out to the full marketing committee and got a lot of consensus around it's not. No, I don't want to oversell kind of you know this is the firm belief of the MC, you know that we need to do this. But it was at least in consultation with them. I feel like the people that have selected for that marketing committee probably have a better handle on marketing language than than I do, as somebody focuses more on engineering options so I'm all for getting their input in the way that's efficient. So, you know, I think, and I shared some of my thoughts here but, you know, we, and I know Brian you replied privately but basically at the end of the day we're starting and I think somebody else piled on this morning and made a similar point and that is, you know, we start getting so many things to talk about and there's no time to really get into them. And so we're not really doing ourselves any favors by, you know, going through the laundry list of all the things that are going on and it's a good. I mean there's a lot of good stuff going on but, you know, you don't you don't hear Sam Ruby running around saying talking about all 340 or whatever it is projects at Apache. You don't hear Mike Malinkovich talking about all 400 projects at Eclipse. Right. I mean, at some point you have to talk a little bit more in generalities about the cool stuff that's going on the collaboration. You know, the enthusiasm, the number of people and less about trying to sell each project on its merits or something like that. I think, you know, maybe that time has come, you know, when we have to be less about trying to sell the projects and sell that instead that's the fact of the organization, the collaboration, the innovation and so forth that's going on. Yeah, I mean, as I said, if we were at 300 projects that certainly we wouldn't do something like this. Right. If we were to talk if we did have a taxonomy than it would be, we'd start with that or or start with a few of the leading projects or something. But but you may you've heard me talk I do talk about all those other things too and I tend to if anything spend less time on the projects and on the value of the whole, then people might expect. But but you know, we are also different from Apache and I think certainly then it and possibly then eclipse where we're really about a portfolio of these projects like who the what the projects are is meaningful. Right. The fact that there is our ways they build upon each other and at other times compete with each other is meaningful. And that's that that meaning is what what I get across when I present. And again, I don't dwell on this slide, you know, it's it's a few minutes and then I go into other topics are more specifics. But just to get a lay of the land just to like to get that that initial top down view. I mean, I could keep using the old graphic in my in my talks but I and other people I think you use this graphic and their talks find value and in that kind of top top down view just to give a sense of what's the there there. I think one of the ways you could look at this is if you look at the drawing we've got frameworks you could change that to active and then to change that middle layer to incubation and leave the rest as it is. Because I think that's kind of actually what it looks like right now is you've got the frameworks there that are active. And then everything else. And I think that would make it fit all into one because really the top two sections are just projects. And if you want it, you could just have one section that was projects list all the projects and then the rest of the greenhouse but I mean those are a couple of different options where now you're not worried about. Oh this one falls into this bucket this one falls into that bucket. It really is just here's all the projects that we have and here's all the other pieces of the community that exists that you can get involved in. Yeah, I made a point on on the thread that I think we're getting too big I mean I use the existing greenhouse one. Chris and I did that in a presentation we were doing and it's actually fairly hard to talk to and try and give everything equal time it takes up a lot, and I think we're at a point where we can just list the main architectural levels if you will, and make sure we can include all the other special or different activities going on like groups and SIGs and things like that. Hyperledger is much more than just the projects. And so, to give just the projects the main thing and your main slide is really doing a disservice to the marketing committee and the special interest groups and the working groups, and all the other activities going on. Well that's why we added those to the greenhouse. Right, but it just makes the slide busier, which if it's too busy, you know, so you don't list each project out you just say here's like frameworks, you know. We have a few a few blockchain projects a few as the case. Silas has been politely raising his hand. Yeah, no just I slightly late seeing this but I've sent an email saying the same to the list but just to flag it, I think Burrow is in the wrong place. It has a component usage by some other projects in terms of the EVM, but that is about 10% of what it is. Burrow is a fully fledged BSE ledger with contract compile, deploy, event system, et cetera, et cetera. Yeah, I saw that. Yeah, don't mind being in two boxes, but you can frame work. Yeah, that's an easy change to make. Sorry for putting it down there. I just figured since the consensus layer in standalone builds on tenorment, right? But no disrespect intended. Yeah, no, I think I mean, yeah, we consider tenorment as a library. We use it in a slightly non-standard way, I guess. Yeah, no, I see why it's in that box, but I think that would be misleading generally. Okay, that's an easy kind of change to me. You know, it's hard to figure out what to do with feedback because I mean, I'm giving presentations where I'm using a greenhouse and I, and I've appreciated being able to show a map of some sort. I do feel like describing kind of differences in groups of functionality is still useful, even though a different way to slice it is, what's active, what's still an incubation. That's certainly a way to, you know, a different kind of chart that can be shown and useful. But just when people ask, what is Hyperledger? What's going on there? What are you guys doing? You know, what kind of tech are you working on? You know, as a starting place, purely as a starting place. It's hard not to, I mean, just talking verbally. Well, we've got some frameworks. We've got some modules and libraries for building. We've got some tools. I mean, that's how I would verbally start talking about things anyways, right? And again, yeah, at 200, you know, we did a different way to do it. But it's, I mean, it's the feedback from you all that we should stop using the greenhouse graphic in our presentations because it feels like something that we get value from. So should we just do something informally? I mean, I'd like the TSC to be behind what we do or give us feedback on things, but you know, it's kind of a marketing graphic. It's hard to design by committee, right? Right. I'm not opposed to having some kind of graphic. This is another evolution of it. I do think that you'll probably get better feedback from marketing people than the technical committee. I mean, we should definitely have a voice in making sure that things are technically correct. So like, like, like Silas clarifying the role of borough, but I don't see how you go in and talk about hyper ledger without having some sort of graphic. Okay. And on the taxonomy front in the thread of conversation, Sean did propose a slightly different layout. And I forgot I need to pull it up to read out what it was apologies for that. But you know, we could start with with that and come back with an updated graphic that shows that taxonomy layout or maybe just get conversions on the TSC on the list about what the right taxonomy is. And then and then we can create a new graphic from that. The taxonomy that you're also sort of asking for the game maybe game, which I feel is also a great job for people with marketing skills. And that's a double-edged sword. What was that? That's a double-edged sword asking the marketing people. I see difference has ended up for a while. Guys, my comment is that this is not just a slide that Brian presents. It is also on the landing page. The first slide that people see first graphic that people see and I believe it should be a live sort of live sort of image in the sense that you should be able to provide different views as drill downs or other kinds of ways in which you can explore that greenhouse. A static image. Well, right. But so if you go to CNCF, for instance, it's just a there's just a row of little glyphs and you hover over them and then there's a little hover over text that, you know, gives you the blurb, right? We don't have to follow there. But that's basically what you're describing a static graphic. That is not what I'm describing. That's not what I'm describing. I'm describing something that goes along with what Mark says, which is how the categories and then you can drill down into the categories and then you get help in exploring this, not as a bunch of a list of glyphs that is too confusing to the eye. It's a little more than, you know, it's a little more than just a list. It has to be dear. Okay, I think we're probably into the level of this discussion that's going to be less productive. Yeah, here's my suggestion. One is I'll repost Sean's proposed taxonomy. I had a few things I wanted to move from it. But if we could focus kind of the conversation on the list on kind of convergence on on that taxonomy, that might be the most productive thing. And then secondly, yes, that's right. We do use this on the homepage. We are making some changes to the, and this is the www hyperlature.org homepage. Obviously, we make some changes to how that's, you know, kind of works anyways, and what your lead off from that is. And so we're very open to talking about are there better starting points on the website for to help people understand kind of the shape of and the constituency of our of our community. Maybe something like the CNCF approach with the trailhead and and the listing and things is better. But we'll take that input and come back to you. But again, focus the TSE on the taxonomy might be the best approach for us in the short term. Does that make sense. Thanks and in your use of the word convergence along there also reminded me that that's that's a good thing to keep in mind when you think about the future state of hyper ledger and what that graphic can do for future proofing itself. Yes. Yeah, not to overload it to be an architectural diagram, but I maybe at some point it starts to remind us hey maybe these two projects should be looking for ways to to work together on a common API or a common use of a library or something. Yep. Okay, thank you Brian. All right. Next on the docket we have the smart contracts working group update. And I think most people have had a chance to review that do we have any questions at this time for Sophia. Well I'm here at one certain questions. Is there any Well people might be bringing their questions to mind is there any point or two or three that you would like to highlight on the working group progress or issues. Yes, sure. Yes, and there is a question from my side. Because Chris commented in this page. If you can please scroll down. And see Chris's comment. Okay. Well, Chris said that we are working on on a wiki page where we are trying to separate the two concepts of smart contracts and contracts and the architecture works volume two report was missing as a link. I surely added it, although I didn't have the time to review this work, which was started by Mark, who's a member of our Marco, sorry, who's a member of our working group. We are working on this product. It's not finished for sure. We're adding content links and from my side, I'm trying to make it as smaller as a search paper as it can be. I'm a researcher. So this is my point of view others are from the business side. So they are the point of view. And we're working on this product. So we added this link and we surely want to cooperate with other groups. I've also posted the blockchain three smart contracts in government three applications and informed the government watching group if they would like to announce it to their meetings and maybe people would like to add some use cases to this or review the whole paper. It's a complete work and also I would like to ask for the formal way how to put it for a review from the PC in order to be formal as a place for it. And also this is a process I would like to follow for the taxonomy. We will craft it. And now there's a full mind map and the table, which is driving from this mind map. So my first question is, which is the official way to issue a review request. And the second one is that we are trying to point out that we have pages that are working products. So we are adding a characteristic on the page title and whatever we think it is finished. We wanted to to let the TSE know and follow any formal way to make it formal and official. So my question is how can we say that we want to request a review for the blockchain three smart contracts. We are having also working group meeting next week on Wednesday, where I would be more, I would be able to hear more people. What would they think and how can we continue from what we have added. On the point on on process. I guess probably isn't written down anywhere. But, you know, we've been operating under the assumption, I think that, you know, as working groups get to the point where they're basically finishing a document and they want to publish it is that they bring it to the TSE for review. And, and I don't know do we need to, you know, Dan and Brian should we update the working group charters to make that a little bit clearer or the working group process but that I mean that's really what I was pointing out is it looked to me like the working group had already established well we're done with this and we're moving on to the next thing and in the past with all the other working groups their their process had been to get the working group to say okay we think this is done and then they submitted to the TSE for review. Yeah, I felt like that was at least in the charter of maybe the architecture working group, but it might not be broadly. Yeah, templated. For those of you who are engaged on the working group committee that we talked about last time. Could you please take note of that action item and make sure that that's in the working process. Yeah, I'll get it in the editor the notes right now. And then Sophia specifically sorry go ahead. All I was going to say is just a reminder that that one is on hold pending the life cycle review stuff because there's a lot of overlap in the people who had opinions and I want to get the life cycle stuff done before we start tackling the working group stuff. So I will keep adding to the issues in the discussions to make sure we're covering it but for the moment it's going to be. Yes. Okay. So if you specifically to your question then usually what we've done in those reviews that have come to the TSE is the paper should get circulated on the TSE mailing list and then you would expect probably something on the order of a month long period where people go in and review it in depth, depending on how long or novel it is and provide feedback and there might be multiple rounds. Okay, that sounds nice so I will issue them. I will send them the email with this paper this article that we have written and as I told you already we are going to work on it as a working group already. So everybody welcome to add and comment for sure and let's see how this goes and I will do the same thing with the taxonomy and we think it is finished product and we started from this taxonomy. We created a list of work products because we want people to be able to work in parallel. Not everybody is interested in the same subject some people are interested in this to rebuild smart contracts, some other interpretability, some others in the architecture so who crafted many working products for the people who expressed their interest in order to be able to add their content and I think that to combine all of them and create a new working product from them, driving from separate works from different people. This is what we mainly do here and I would be more than eager to hear what you think of the working group. We are trying to follow the rules to add the agenda denotes by the templates and here the people what they want what they need and try to make research in order to find out what are the hot topics and what we should work on. And also I try to participate, I can speak for myself, but I have seen others from the working group do this and we like to do this to participate in other working groups in order to see what they do and how can we have some cooperation on our working products or how can we contribute to their working products. So, that's mainly what we are doing from the from February, since now until now, and I'm open for your questions or any of your guidance. Please. So did you say that that you were adding a list of new working group work products. Yes, from the taxonomy that we think that it is a complete product. We have a mind map if it is easy for you to open the working group in order to describe it because it's really hard to describe by words. We took the taxonomy and created a list for each of separate page for this list for people to be able to work on each, let's say bullet of this mind map, each model of this mind map as a separate working product, in order to create separate working products which will make a full working product, because some of these refer to let's say functional requirements and other refer to computational requirements and other refer to the low area. So these are not combined in a full product, they are separate products which in the end will be a complete working product, which will derive from the separate working product of each of these concepts bubbles in the mind map. Okay, so I understand that's me that you are just dividing the work up amongst the team for the existing something that fits under the existing charter of the working group. If you want to make it smaller package. Yes. If at some point you want to expand or alter the charter of the working group and that's a good thing to provide the TSC so that we can have some discussion on that if necessary. Next, we're surely until now on track. As for the starter, the purpose of the group hasn't changed, we are evolving so we are creating more creative ways for people to participate because as I've told you if there is a complete product that we can work on such as we did with the blockchain, three smart contracts in government, maybe not everybody is interested in these. So there are many things that we can look from different angles. Some are researchers, some are technical people, some are businessmen, some are we have a lawyer who adds content for the low contracts. So we have different perspective for the same things, but the charter is until now followed. And I don't, I don't think that right now, it will be the right time to change it. We have a specific charter and scope. If, but in the future, something might must change. Yes, I will surely do discuss with the other people and see how can we update it and for sure inform you. Wonderful. All right, well, thank you for continuing to volunteer time on the working group and the rest of your working group contributors as well. Moving along, I think we have Bobby on the line to talk about the learning materials and documentation working group. Hi. Thank you, Bobby. Do we have any questions for Bobby. And just like we did well people are thinking of those questions. Bobby is there anything that you want to highlight particularly any issues or areas of feedback looking for from the TSE. Basically, we spent the last quarter just building out the framework to house documentation and learning materials. We're hoping for guidance like Sophia said from the TSE in the marketing department to kind of know what needs to be put in the frameworks. So again, the Wiki has a lot of structure to it, but now we need some framework building. So we're looking for guidance there membership is low as well. So as soon as we get more members will be able to be more effective. Well, just highlight one topic. We do have on the wiki page a resource page where people can go and look at open projects. So we're hoping new members we've made it easy to onboard with our new member page. We're hoping that new members can get a Linux login quickly. And edit the pages and know exactly what work needs to be done. For instance, we believe this summer we're going to be editing, helping Flavia help edit some chapters that she's been working on. We need to help borrow with some learning documentation. So we do have the framework ready for that we're just again waiting for more members and some guidance on how to get that done. I was just talking to a sawtooth contributor yesterday about content that they developed for the edX course back in the fall of 2018. Do you know if if the edX course was updated in that timeframe. What I know right now is that Flavia is working on the first three chapters broken out into the basic beginner business course. And then I know that Salona was mentioning that the remaining technical chapters were all going to be contributed by the different projects themselves and I think she was working on a framework to get contributors to put in so all I know is that like we're trying to work forward on the system to get the edits and so people with technical background can look at them and make sure they're accurate. Was your question regarding the sawtooth chapter in the introduction to hyperledger technologies course. It was this, it was specifically the simple supply chain content that we have in a GitHub repo like education sawtooth simple supply or something like that. Was there any other content in there as well as demo code. As far as I know that one is not available. That one never made it we did make the changes to the just the sawtooth chapter but we didn't do that. As of when I left. Okay. So, Bobby what is your handle on on rocket chat. It's, I believe it's Bobby. Um, yes, JN at the end. If you do go to the resource page and go to the on our homepage the resource page frameworks and tools and go down to sawtooth we are trying to collect all the documentation we can find. So I can show you what we have collected so far. And if the sawtooth people want to go in and edit that. I'm on the resource page now to see a sawtooth. Go down to it's under frameworks and tools. I see. And then sawtooth many layers. Yes, there's a lot of a lot of things going on. So that would be where the information we can collect from the working group lines up in each again project has it has a page. Okay, great. I will send this over to that contributor. Thank you. Thank you. So Dan, can I speak please. And I guess it's more directed at Mick, but the one thing I've seen in both of these reports today is trying to get members is an issue or a challenge. So again, it gets back to working group. Yeah, and I think, I mean, getting back to your point, I talked to Brian a little bit yesterday about exactly this problem. That that the working groups need to have. I think I will express my opinion. My opinion is that right now the working groups have to have a stronger sort of reason to be there has to be value and influence that can come out of them. And until that happens, it's going to be very difficult to get people to make commitments to something that's simply descriptive of what's already going on. So the situations where we've had the best input are those where we've been constructive. So, yeah, I tend to agree very strongly with that sentiment, Mick. And I don't remember. I can't I'm trying to remember if there was an email and I remember I don't remember who it was it said it but I kind of resonated with that sort of same thought and this this pertains to specifically to this particular working group and that essentially it's competing with the projects that are managing and doing their own documentation. And I, I, you know, I see that you know we're trying to get the edX teams to source material from the project teams but the project teams have stuff to do and things to get done and, and I think they look at this as sort of like well, you know, okay, but I'm kind of busy. Maybe the thing ought to be a little bit more about how do we ensure that we have a consistent approach to delivering documentation from the various projects, especially the DLTs or frameworks or whatever, you know, the things, whatever we end up calling them, such that, you know, their, their, you know, the documentation is easily consumable and, and, and we're able to sort of grow our our usage and our membership and so forth. And I, I mean, I think right now if I'm looking at this when I see it sort of working sort of at cross purposes to the various projects and I don't know what others think about that but that's sort of how I feel about this. And I'm not saying it's not good work that don't get me wrong. I just think that, you know, we need to be working more collaboratively as opposed to in silos that are not really talking to one another. And Chris, this does point out exactly the problem, which is that the working groups right now tend to be sitting outside the projects, integrated in the projects. And because of that, there's no way that they can be prescriptive. I mean, there's no way we can give teeth to the working group until it's the project participants who are the ones who are in the working groups. And this is this is the conundrum that we've been discussing is how do you give the working groups. I hate to use the word but I will authority in a way that the projects will accept that authority, because they are participants in it. And I'll just leave it at that. I don't want to dig into too far into this because we've got other things related to the life cycle and a bunch of others that are that are not independent of this problem. And I think we've agreed that we're going to sequence the the the concerns looking at the life cycle first. Go ahead. Go ahead. Go ahead. I think we should be a bit more agile in how we handle working groups in general. I think people will participate if they see value into it. Unfortunately, there's no way to force people. This is open source. It's all voluntary people participate where they see value in doing so. And so, personally, I think we should be much more willing to say, you know what, there's just not enough people interested in doing this right now. Either we close it. I mean, this is fairly low cost in creating working groups and shutting them down. And I think we should be, you know, and I'm not saying this for this particular working group, although I have raised the concern that this in some way competes with the project's documentation efforts. And so I don't want to say I told you so, but there's a little bit of this, you know, involved in this. But, you know, in general, I think as a rule, we should be much more, you know, agile in creating working groups and, you know, stopping them if we don't see anything to do right now. There's not enough momentum interest and then recreate them when the interest comes back, if it does. Well, and then, you know, attended to the, and Arno, it was you, I just couldn't recall. But, you know, attended to that would be, okay, so but then when we do create a working group, what are we doing to ensure that the project teams are actively going to participate. In other words, we should build that, make into the whole life cycle aspect of things that we sort of say, yeah, that's a great idea. We should talk about how to do smart contracts or yeah, that's a great idea. We should, we should get a working group that's looking at, you know, whatever. Yeah. And just, just to be clear with a very concrete example of this, you know, if, if for example, you want to claim that your platform provides privacy, that you now have to go to the architecture working group in order to get something that their approval for claiming that your project provides privacy. That gives some teeth to the working group, but it also means that the project participants become much more motivated to be a part of that working group and in order to get the definition as clear as possible so that they know what to do. I mean, there are some of these ideas that might help us get the teeth into it where we can encourage participation precisely because it is the thing that's driving, you know, integration across the project. And again, I'm just throwing ideas out there. There's nothing, there's nothing fixed. But I think those are the kind of things that that I'd like to be able to talk about at some point in this when we get back to the working group parts of it. But would it would it make sense over time to look at centralizing things like documentation so there's a working group that does documentation across all the projects. So it's consistent when when people go to read it. Things like that it would also help some of the smaller projects, because, you know, it would give resources that they may might not otherwise get and would hold the project back. Brian says hand up for a while. And I think Mark you touch on the fundamental tension here which is to what degree does a working group like this create materials and in doing that create them that are hyperledger why that are somewhat standardized that help the smaller projects, or to a degree are they really about just trying to set common standards across the different projects so that because there is like this great documentation call and working group within fabric that's run by Anthony. I doubt I want to give credit to that process that seems to work really well. And so fabric docs are in a pretty good shape. But, you know, the goal over all of these working groups right is to be the glue between our projects right across the different projects to help harmonize or set to have in a way that projects help each other to, you know, like in architecture, Oh, you're working on that we're doing this, maybe we should combine efforts or learn from your mistakes or or that sort of thing. And so, I went back and looked at the Charter for the learning materials working group. And, and it isn't quite clear on on, you know, because it does seem to suggest a lot of content creation. And, and, and that's obviously a challenge if you don't have people from the projects involved. Right. Not impossible but but from those involved and so maybe we just want to involve evolve in this in for the learning materials, working group, kind of specifically what we're on that spectrum, it aims to lie. And the more that it's about creating content or managing things like the MOOC, the more it needs participants from the projects themselves to be involved. And needs to find a way to not to not say this is additive and charity and would be nice if but to say hey actually this is pretty important to the projects and the projects to realize that that's important to them. Hi, it's Bobby. Again, we were just discussing how we can collect the materials that are out there and make sure they look and feel the way that the message we want to portray. So again, the participation is needed from the people who are actually developing the materials, especially as they get more technical. Yes, and, and thank you for for suffering through some of the broader discussion there about working group health Bobby. I think that that the course of this discussion is also run through here so thanks for providing the update. And then a little bit of discussion on on the chat there. If we could get an update on the life cycle committee next week that would be great. And once we do have several things that are starting to stack up aligned with that work or the the output of that. I think that will be helpful for all of us. And let's see here. I think that brings us to the end of our agenda today. Thank you everybody for your time. And we will talk to everybody again next week. Thank you. And thank you Sophia and Bobby. Thank you all.