 Hello, everyone. Welcome to the TSE Will Click Call. As you all know, I believe this is a public call. Anybody is welcome to join and participate. However, you must be aware of the antitrust policy and live by it. The notice of which is currently displayed. Along with the code of conduct, which is linked from the agenda. We have a couple of announcements to get to started. Sure. Yeah, we'll give you the, let you have the honor. Okay. Your own kind of those two. Sure. Just a reminder that the, we're always looking for content for the Dev Weekly newsletter. And. If you, if your project is doing something cool. And let us know. Just leave a comment on the wiki page. And we'll make sure to get it in there. The second item here is we have two Mac OS hosted runners for GitHub that I'm using to prove out stuff. One is Intel and one is in one. It's currently the Intel one is currently plugged into. They report that it is much, much faster. We are using the. M one Mac with sewing to produce a Mac LVM builds. If you would like to experiment with this or work with me on this. Reach out to me directly. And let's see if we can get like one or two more projects to. Prove this out. And that's all I got. All right. Thank you. Any questions on that point? So far, the people have had a chance to try it. I've reported that it actually works much better than the standard CI we have on GitHub. But of course, I don't know how long this will last. If we all join, but. We'll see. Yeah, these are. Base model. You know. Mac minis. So I can't support. 500. Builds. Maybe I can support two simultaneous bills. No, that's understood. Thank you. Is there any other announcements anybody wants to make? This is your chance. In the meantime, I saw Troy joined us. Well, thank you. So we have a full house. Right. If there is no other announcements, then we can move on to the quarterly reports. We got two new reports submitted. It was like yesterday. So I know not everybody may have had a chance to look at them. I think there is one point that is worth. Discussing. They reported that they are not compliant with the common repository structure. And what I find interesting that might be worth discussing is, you know, Sean basically say, well, we're not compliant and don't intend to be. Because we are different. You know, choices we've made. And I was wondering, it seems to me that, I mean, we have like three options. We can ignore it. Let them let it be. We can say, oh, okay. Their choice is not unreasonable. We should revise. Our definition to allow for that variation. Or we could say, sorry, you can't do this. You should comply. Or, you know, you have the burden to convince us. If we need to change the definition. Something along those lines. I think the other kind of, you know, possible ways forward. I see Daniel as race design. Go ahead. So the solution to ask PDX is both. Hyperledge basu does both the full text of the license. And yes, PDX marker. They're not exclusive. So I think that's an easy one to say, come in compliance. The release notes and change log. I think it's a different thing. And I'm leaning towards the need to change that file. Whether or not it is the change log or pointer. Just for consistency, because that's the point of these standards is consistency. All right. Anybody else. Anybody feels differently. I mean, so what I'm hearing is Daniel is saying, come on, we should kind of push them a little bit and say, you're not that far from being compliant. The SPDX headers can be added. And the release notes like get over just comply. Just to be, to be compliant, to be, to, to, to stick to this idea of having a common repository structure. We can. So, I mean, for now, you know, we, I wouldn't necessarily, you know, frame it into some kind of like, order from the TSC to comply, but I would continue, you know, discussion with Sean and say, try to negotiate a little bit and understand if there is not, you know, any legal room, any room there for them to, to come along. Right. And I see a room responded. Yeah, that's where I got the change like compliance idea. I think. These are totally achievable on their part. They do a little bit, a little bit of action. Yeah. All right. So I don't see anybody else jumping to speak up. So I think that's the course of action for now. We'll just keep pushing gently and say, come on. Come around and be nice. Arun. So because I didn't know, I, I, sorry, I don't know the context behind the SPDX. So if you can share some information about that, that might help. Sure. SPDX is a very small header. At the top of files, which is part of our. The Linux foundations. Push towards software supply chain security. It's machine parsable. It's two or three lines at the top of each file declaring. What the license of that file is. In the past, we had discussed only changing it as. Thank you. Tracy Tracy put a link in the chat. As people edit a file. At it. Not that people need to make a wholesale set of changes to all files. To, to inject this, this header. So that's, that's the context from the Linux foundation side. This is an effort that's been underway for. Five or six years. And the motivation is, is to try to prevent some variations in the license text that would be maybe difficult to spot, because sometimes. You know, documents go through. Some changes and the, the text of the license may be relayed out. It'd be differently. And then it becomes very hard to. See if it has actually changed any kind of substantial manner. And so rather than taking the risk of. You know, having different variations of the text. It's like, well, if you have a simple identifier. With an interaction, there's only like, you know, there are fewer versions of the license. The full license text. That, you know, exist and there's just an idea, which is very easy to, to identify and, and pass and, and link to the actual full text. It makes things much easier to manage. Does that. Is that enough? Sure. So I'll read through this. The website that was shared. So I wanted to understand if it was pushed from hyperlegia, or if it was from somewhere else to the context that it came from the next foundation. And that it's been pushed and lost five, six years. That gives me some information. And coming to the addition of headers. I liked the idea that. Dan will put in that the basic project currently follows. It basically follows both the structure. So it should be fine. And it's again, only for newer files that. That it is being mined at not for the earlier parts of code. So it should be fine. I did. And so by the way, if we have both the. Spdx header and the full text. I don't know what happens if there is discrepancy between the two. I would need to defer to legal counsel. I don't know. I did want to point out before we moved on. That the grid. As well as the transact had the same. Note here and Tracy commented about it over here as well. So. Yeah. And some people are behind it. So it's not surprising they're following the same. Same path, I guess. I suspect we'll find the same thing in all the projects where. They are the same people involved. And there are quite a few of them. But all right, let's leave it at this for now. I'm happy to let the discussion on the. We key keep on going for now. And we'll, you know, we'll keep an eye. I don't know if there's any other question. That was the one thing that I noticed that was, you know, I wanted to bring up. But otherwise I'll carry those two reports over to next week. And you'll have another chance to comment or ask questions if there's anything. And just quickly on borough. I have sent an email to Silas a few days ago and I've not heard back from him yet. So I don't know what's up. Maybe. Is there, I mean, is, I haven't looked at borough. I don't know how active borough is, is this. Is this a project that we could consider putting in the state for that we put quilt in, which I can't remember the name. If it's dormant. Thank you. We will have to see if they really are dormant. Typically they, and I haven't looked at the insights. Website to see what the latest. Activities. Okay. Tracy. Have you looked. So get house shows that the last. Merge request was put in 21 hours ago. So. That's what I expected. They do work on this code. There's really, you know. Their main project, but. Yeah. I mean, it looks like, it looks like it's a little slow, but there is some. Stuff happening. So typically, you know, we'll hear back from Silas and they'll send us a nice report eventually. We just have to be a bit patient. Okay. Thanks for looking into that, Tracy. Yes, thank you. All right. Anything else on any of these reports? All right. If not, let's keep on going. So. Regarding the discussions. Discussion items. Of course, the main one is the TSC election, which is coming. Coming up pretty quickly. So you must have seen that. David. Sent. Email with a link to a page that they has created based on the old one on the previous iteration. And with an update. In line with what we had discussed last week. And. So the question now is, I mean, technically speaking, we need to, you know, whether approve this or revise it as necessary. So that then. We basically have to give the staff the green line to start executing this plan. So. I would like to open it to the group here and ask if anybody has any questions. Any comments. Or can we just approve it? And if David, if you have anything you want to raise, please pick up as well. Tracy. Yeah, so I just, I made a comment. In the bottom there that. It looks like if we use insights, we are potentially pulling in folks that we wouldn't have pulled in, in the past. And so I just want to make sure that we're all aware that that's the case and that we don't have any problems with that. And I ran this. I got the insights data. A few weeks ago. And then again, recently. And I think there were about. 800. People that came up as valid. Who had email addresses. So it's a little bit more than it was last time. And I think if we use the. So to your point about the, the working group. Chairs. I, in the ones in the elections where I was involved, I found that we really only got. One or two. People who weren't otherwise picked up. The working groups would work in your chairs and send a list. And then. We would look at those people were already valid. So I think we're going to have pretty good coverage. Yeah, go ahead. Sorry. Just, just to clarify. We did definitely get people from the working groups and previous years. We have not gotten people who were participating in the six. Which. We will this year because the insights will gather information from the wiki and the mailing list and the chat channels for six, as well as. Any other sorts of contributions. I don't think this is necessarily a big deal, but it is a change. And so that's why I bring it up. For us to, you know, make sure that we're making deliberate choices. Instead of, whoops, I didn't realize that was going to happen. But I appreciate that. I think you're right. Nathan is next. Well, I was just going to say, I'm glad that Tracy has brought up that this is a change. I think it's a good change. And I would. I don't know if it's something we have to make a decision on necessarily, but I'm in favor of it. So my, the only one that kind of makes me wonder is the chat. Does this mean anybody who's just asked a question in the chat is included. If I have an email address for them in insights. The answer is yes. However. What I found is that. If you only interact on chat. You are probably not going to show up in insights. So I'm not. Super worried about that. So you have to explain a bit more, I'm afraid, because so. How do people show up just based on chat? I mean, this is part of what's in the list here. I mean, honestly, I'm, you know, I don't really care. I'm a bit of include everybody, but it's, it feels kind of like, you know, fairly far from the initial target, which was technical contributors. So this is how they'll show up. So they show up as a source of rocket chat. They have a username. There's no email associated. There's no organization associated. So. They basically won't show up if I filter by email. Now, if this person had done something else. Made it get commit. They would. They would show up. All right. But so that means in fact, if all they have done is being in the chat. They're probably not going to show up. Right. They would have to go through extraordinary effort. To show up to only work in chat. And have an email address associated with their profile. There's a way to do it, but I would be shocked if anyone did it. If I, if, if the person has asked. And so the other one, I guess is the mailing list. And I see how it is on the queue. Heart. Hey. I was just wondering, like, do we really think that these people who have like asked a question once. Are actually going to bother to vote. No, I don't think so. I agree with you. That's why I'm like, that doesn't really matter to me, but. It's just, you have to acknowledge that's a pretty, you know. You know, You know, You know, It's it's pretty far from the initial target. That's all I meant. And so back to the mailing list question. So if I have asked a question or mailing list for sure, you would have my email address, I guess. That would be included. I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Gary. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So back to the mailing list question. So if I have asked a question or mailing list, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Gary. I just a beauty because I got on my phone and so I'm just going to mute on my phone because I don't have a whatever. Okay. You don't have anything to contribute. It's all right. No, but so are we cool with that? I feel the same. It's like, well, so somebody shows up on the mailing list as some random question. And now they have. They are involved in this. You know, finally it doesn't bother me. I don't know that they will bother. Voting. So I can live with it. But, you know, some. We talked about the fact that. You know, the wording initially isn't charter. And we're supposed to, you know, if we wanted to play by the book, we would have to revise the charter. To match what we are doing. But I don't think we should. Mind you, this, this is not the only thing. And, you know, a tric record shows that we can. Divers from the charter without any real problem. But. I wonder if that's really. Departure from the initial intent. We kind of betraying some kind of goal that was set up initially. I would say that if that's the case, then we've been betraying it all along, because we've always tried to include as many of the technical contributors as we can. And cast as wide as, while wide as a net as we can, because it helps encourage people to feel like they have a stake in the project and participate more. Whereas if we leave them out, it feels like they don't have a stake in the project. And it feels like we're turning them away. So, you know, I think like you said, I know the risks are very low. They're very low risk. So, you know, I think that the people who are not vested in the project and don't have much interest, they aren't going to respond to the ballot email and vote anyway. We usually have to pester people to pay attention to those emails. So I think it's, it's very low risk. It feels like even if it's not in the spirit of the exact wording of the charter, which I feel like it is in the spirit of the wording of the charter. It is the same in general as what we've been doing all along with the charter. So I think that this makes it easier for the staff because the tools help pick up all the different participants and they don't have to pester the chairs as much. So I agree, but I just want to highlight again, you, you started and you stated technical contributors and I agree with you that we've tried to make that as wide, you know, a net as possible. However, if, you know, I would argue that if all you've done is asking a simple question, you've not, you know, you don't qualify as a technical contributor. So that's where there's a departure. But, you know, for all the reasons you also cited, I'm okay with it. It's just, we should be clear that this is the case. Okay. Or no, just one thing. I agree with Nathan actually. But to your point though, right? I mean, yeah, there's going to be something. I mean, I think we don't have to beat this one to death, but just as a side point, I'll play devil's advocate. You could technically argue that somebody posts a question is actually a contributor because maybe that question is contributing to either updating something in the product, updating or whatever. So I mean, you know, anybody could argue things six, you know, six, one way, half a dozen, the other, right? But in the end, right? It's really going to, you know, affect anything and doesn't meet the goal of that we continue to seem to argue, not argue about try to do a year after year after year, even though I haven't been around here, I'm getting more people in and to vote. All right. That might take for whatever it's worth, which apparently nothing compared to since you said that earlier, but whatever. Your input is welcome. Thank you, Gary. Let's go to the Q Tracy. Yeah, so paste it in the chat. What the definition of contributors is. So anyone in the technical community that contributes code, documentation or other technical artifacts to the code base. I'm wondering if we use the insights, but don't include chat or mailing list. But we include obviously code and wiki. Even Jira, I think probably corresponds to something like that. Does that, does that, is that more in line with what the charter says and maybe gets rid of some of the concerns and rise that even technically feasible. Yeah, that's kind of what I was wondering indeed. These are the, these are the easy ones I can get. Code PRs, Jira issues and confluence. Those are the easy ones. The mailing lists and chat are harder to get. They're not on this page. So that's. So it's actually easy for you not to include chat and mailing. This is what you're telling us. Yeah, it's more work to get them. Okay. That's good to know heart. Yeah, I mean, as far as the, the charter goes, I mean, we are, even if we include the chat and mailing list, we are still sort of operating in the spirit of what the charter says. And given that the governing board themselves operates like well outside the charter frequently. Oh yeah. I mean, they're supposed to post public minutes and that doesn't happen. So I'm not too worried about that. If they want to say that like we're minorly operating outside of the charter, we can say that like, well, look at what you guys are doing. You're not even like remotely following this thing. So that's not like a big point of concern, I think. So by the way, I did bring that up to the board. And I was told, if you look at the wording carefully, it says the minutes should be published. It doesn't say it must be published. So, but they are looking into possibly publishing at least part of that that would be felt like, you know, not. Not an issue to publish more widely. That's a side note. But okay, so it sounds like now we have two different options. But, you know, since the whole idea of updating the process was also to make the, the process easier for the staff. And right just told us it's easier if it doesn't have to include the mailing list in the chat. And arguably this is, I would think more in line with the charter or what they know, the criteria that we have set before. I would be suggesting to keep it to that, keep it to the list that hot. The right was just showing us before, which does not include chat and does not include me. Hot. My one concern is just that this mean that the LF staff is going to have to manually do all the working group stuff again. Because ideally they would not have to do that. I mean, I guess we have a decision whether or like. So let's ask right. Do you know that does that include. So. If they've made any wiki edits, they're going to be. Here and, but if they just published on the mailing list possibly in the group, they would not appear. Sure. So what I was saying earlier was we've done this every year and the number of people that get nominated by chairs who are not already picked up. Is, you know, you can count on a single hand. We could, we still have the election. Email address. So we could say, if you don't show up in the. Eligibility check site. Send an email. Yeah. And I saw that. Tracy and a couple of people had their hands up. And I see Dave has come off mute Dave. I didn't raise my hand, but I sound like Arnaugh was working towards a proposal. I was going to get ready to second it because I completely agreed with what he said. So yeah. So my proposal, given what right just said again about the working groups is to stick to the list that right was showing earlier, which does not include the chat and does not include the mailing list. I would second that proposal. So. Do we have a vote? Do you want to roll call vote or just a. No, we can just see if anybody. Does anybody opposes this proposal? I think we should have everyone give a yay. We don't have to do a roll call. But I think we should have it make everyone at least say yes. Yeah, but I can start with the oppose anyway, right? It felt like it was an objection thing going on. Sorry. No, you jumped the gun there. I just meant to do it the other way to make sure, you know, if anybody objected to this proposal, I was interested to hear it. So I haven't heard anybody opposing the proposal, the motion. Everybody in favor says aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Quite a few. Anybody wants to abstain? Well, I guess this passes then. Thank goodness. That should make everybody feel happy about this decision. I guess. Is that a new record of vote passing 33 minutes into a meeting? I don't know. Wait, Tracy. That's more for us. Yes. Sorry. Can we just make sure we update that first bullet point? I don't know. I guess this passes then. Thank goodness. That should make everybody feel happy about this decision. I guess. I think we should make sure we update that first bullet point to include the fact that we're not. Chat. Yes. I agree. We should make sure this is. We're just specific about what we're pulling. From the insights tool. Maybe they said, David, can you make that they did right away? Because I would like to next agree on this plan. Otherwise, is there anything else about this plan? Anybody. Anybody has questions about or wants to comment or quit? You know, change. Or are we good to go? All right. I don't hear any. Just to confirm. Make the change around just. Not pulling the data from mainly lesson chat. Is that the change you'd like to see? That's right. Yeah, I can make that. So with that. You know, in the works. It sounds like everybody's happy with the plan. Otherwise. Should we have a. Vote on the approving this plan? I second that. All right. Thank you. All right. Everybody in favor says hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. Anybody opposes the motion. Anybody wants to object. This motion carries them. All right. We're done for the time being with this election. I won't say the objective that I had in mind. So yes, let's move on. So the staff will start executing this plan and. And we'll see what comes out of it. If there is no problem, we don't need to get involved again. Until, you know, the end. So let's move on to other topics. We have quite a few other topics still in the backlog. And there's one that Arun actually asked me the other day. To bring up if we could. So I wanted to take the time we have to look into this. It is about creating a contributor experience working group. So where are we at? Arun, do you want to give us. Kind of. Update where we stand. There was a bit of discussion a while ago and. This thing has been lying there for a while. Right. So this was to evaluate or see how best experience a new contributor would get in this type. When they start contributing to. The idea was to bring them up as in when those things happen. And meanwhile, there are also multiple six and working groups who are trying to collaborate across each other. They're trying to get together and then. Create, for example, a workshop kind of event where new contributors can get used to the community and then contributing. All those aspects. So the idea was not to put any structure around such informal. Get togethers that are happening within the community. Having more structure would lead to people. I think we lost a room. I was wondering it sounded like a bit brutal. The end there. So. I see the last comment here from a room is. To reject this proposal. So. I don't know if that was what you want. The room is to. To have this voted down. Yeah. So what's interesting is, you know, he's not saying we shouldn't tackle this issue is saying the working group is not the right. And I think I would agree with this. So for those who may not remember, we don't know the difference between working groups and task force. Is that task force are. Short lived and they have a specific call. And once they have produced the, whatever, the deliverable they are set to do to achieve, you know, to produce. They dissipate. The dismiss. And so. Working group on the other end. No longer have any deliverables. So they are more like discussion forums. And they have a specific call. And once they have produced the, whatever the deliverable, they are set to do to achieve, you know, to produce. They have a specific call. And they have a specific discussion forums. And so on that basis, I think he has a valid point that maybe a task force in more appropriate. And I've had, I don't know if this is what everyone was going to say. And, you know, I don't want to. You know, guess what he was going to say, but I have had some conversations with him, Ryan. I've had some conversations with him. Another wrinkled ad is I think. A lot of conversations are happening in the greenhouse task force. So, you know, Relevant to a contributor experience, you know, Discussions. So we would, you know, I think one conversation we had in our, you know, Discussions about this is we don't want to split those conversations. Right now. I mean, if those conversations are happening, and that's that task force. Let's let that happen. So it felt like at least at the very least it was premature to create a. Contributor experience group right now while that task force was happening. So I think it would be to hold on any decision on this until that green house task force winds down to see if there's a different home where we want to put, you know, move those conversations if there's additional things that we want to discuss. First thing. I joined from phone. I'm not sure if I'm still already with. Yeah, not so my laptop restarted all of a sudden when I was speaking, sorry about that. So I was trying to say that I heard David speaking right now and yeah, so the working group and kind of put structure around how a meeting should be run and how I mean, it also mandates that we elected chair for that working group and then they follow a structure. So we wanted to keep the informal communication that is happening, the collaboration happening across different groups to continue the way it is happening. However, if any burning issues are brought out, which needs urgent attention, then we decided that I mean, a task force kind of structure is still better. It is short lived. People know exactly what needs to be done at the end of say two months or three months. And they come up with some proposals at the end of their task for term. And it is completely informal that they're not entitled to follow certain structures. They can bring in their own way of working. And that seems to have worked in a couple of cases. So that's where probably we should reject the proposal as of now to create a contributor experience group. And more motion if possible on creating task force. And however, one thing that people would like to have help from Hyperledger itself is the community resources. And I'm very sure that try and or any community architect have never said no to utilizing any of the resources and the resources when I say it could include the confluence pages or it could include mailing lists. Such things. All right, thank you. And I mean, right. I know you created that page, but. What. The proposal in the first place. Brian said. Do this. And I did that. And that was it. So I created this page as part of capturing discussions. On one of the TSC calls. I don't remember. I'm going to guess that. It was last year. I'm going to guess. That's fine. I mean, the main point really I was trying to get to is, you know, is there anybody out there, you know, who is adamant about creating the working group instead of a task force eventually. I'm not sure there is. I think the answer is no. Right. So, I mean, is there anybody objecting to this idea of creating a task force rather than a working group? I would expect not. And so then there's the question of timing. Do we create this task force now? Or do we wait a bit? We lost our run again. Yeah, he dropped off. Between doing it now and waiting or no. I mean, Gary can go ahead. He was talking. Oh, sorry. I should have just said I raised my hand. Sorry about that. I was just going to say, what's the difference between. What's the concern about doing it now versus later? I guess. I just didn't understand. Apologies if I wasn't clear. But I mean, my two cents on the difference between doing it now versus doing it later is we could fracture conversations that are naturally occurring. Already in the greenhouse task force. I mean, if that's where the conversations to happen, I wouldn't necessarily want to, you know, say, no, you can have those conversations here. You need to move them over here. Got you. See, you're saying we delay the, you're not really saying that. I got it. You're saying that we may not need this because. It's probably, it may already be happening organically somewhere else. I got it. I mean, it'd be interesting to hear from somebody on the TSE who's been going to those green house tasks. Force calls, but a number of things related to contributor experiences are coming up in those conversations naturally, just because how we structure the greenhouse is part of the contributor experience. Right. So I know. I don't know if Helen's on the call, but I know there's been conversations about how do we improve? How do we take this information about the new greenhouse, for example, and improve the entry points for a new contributor, right? And to me that, you know, improving the onboarding experience for a new contributor is very much a contributor experience. Discussion. And that's just. Organically already happening in that forum. So I wouldn't want to say no, you can't discuss this there. You have to go to a different meeting at a different time. You know. Right. No, I think that's a valid point. Heart is next. You are. Yeah. I've been going to these meetings. And I guess. Who it. My question was, is there someone who's. Driving this. Like working group slash task force. I mean, I don't really think it matters whether it. Like. I think it can start as a task force. And if the task force decides that it should be longer term, then their like recommendation can be, it should be a working group, right? So. I think that that's like a totally fine thing to do is if they say that, like, this should be ongoing. It should be. We can accommodate that. Yes. To address. And to address the point on the greenhouse task force. It is affecting a lot. It is discussing in. A lot of the contributor experience. But I guess is, is this working group or task force going to be focused on sort of the new contributor experience or like the. Olds contributor experience. Because the greenhouse group is mostly focused on new contributor experience. Yeah, but I think that's the idea. And so I think the, basically the, the way forward is pretty straightforward in my opinion is that we say, okay, we're not going to create this working group. We're going to say, Hey, if you're interested in this topic, just join the greenhouse task force. Although, and by the end of the greenhouse task force, we'll have to decide whether we're done or if we want to create a new task force that's specific, you know, specifically focusing on that aspect. That would be my proposal. I don't, I, I don't know. I don't think we should just, you know, say no to this proposal and not give any pointers because we would be missing. I guess the intent. Brian had to asking right to create this. Was to not lose this, you know, entirely. So we have to have some kind of pointer to, you know, the resolution's got to be. We don't need to be focused on that. I don't think we should just. You know, say no to this proposal and not give any pointers to this proposal. We don't need to be focused on that. We don't need to be, we don't need to create this because the discussion is happening in that task force. And then when that task force ends, you know, if needed, we can create another one. Does that sound reasonable to everyone? Anybody objects to that idea? We can make a motion, but. Okay. Since nobody objects, let's make it official. So we'll make a motion, and then we'll make a motion. Not create the contribution experience working group, but defer the discussion to the current greenhouse task force. And when. Like I said, when the greenhouse task force. And. If the discussion on contributor experience is not over. There's a need for more. We will consider creating. A task force dedicated to that topic. We can do a quick vote. We seem to be. We've been doing well so far. I see. Right has already written resolve. So. Might be just. At least relief at this point, but. Let's go from, let's go for it. So. I think in your proposal. Thank you. Anybody in favor says hi. Hi. Hi. Hi. All right. All right. Anybody opposing the motion. Anybody wants to abstain. All right, the motion carries. Thank you. So that's the end of what I had on the agenda. We have 10 minutes left. Is there any other topics anybody wants to bring up? Which can be from the backlog. We still have quite a few items. Or anything else for that matter. If anybody has. Desire to bring a topic. Now is a good time. I do have to point out that. You know, we try to do a cleanup of the backlog a while ago. And they were people who basically. Said, oh, let's not close this. I will come up with a proposal to close this. And we're still waiting for those. It would be good to see some, something happening. Otherwise we just lose track and those things just stay there and looks like. We're just, you know, that I don't think they bring any value in having them there. Is there any issue? Oh, Arun, please. Thanks so much. So now that we are discussing an open item. So I observed that. In the poll inter we are saying it's not mandatory that you implement a repeal interest. So, which is fine for project. Like. How do we go on the repository in such a case, right? So being having seen so many repositories at a hyperledger level, and how do we confirm that. All the projects are running fine. So do we still need to have a mechanism. Through which either the staff or the TSE can identify. And notify those projects. Hey. You know what? You claim that everything is fine, but we observed this discrepancy. Maybe you forgot or maybe it was because you are doing something else. So you may need to fix that. What I'm trying to suggest is do we still need a mechanism of identifying those. Automated way of identifying. Just given the number of positive trees that we are having currently. So the status quo is that, you know. Try to use a repeal interest, you know, and. It didn't work out well. So we decided to forgo that and not make it mandatory. At this point, we are relying solely on self. Declaration, you know, people tell us in the reports, like, just like what we're discussing earlier with grid and transact. As to where they are with implementing the. Common repository structure. And that's it. We are not. I, you know, I guess we're not. We're not the police in that way. We're not. We don't have any tools. We go by what people tell us. Are you saying we can't trust them. We have to, we should have some other tool of one kind or another to try to. Assess whether the claims are valid or not. And I understand it may not be like, you know, that they are trying to screw with the system. They may just not realize they are not compliant. But. Right. Let's, let's go with that assumption that they're not trying to spoil the system, but they're just forgetting to do something or maybe their understanding is literally different from the rest of the people. So let's go with that understanding. And I'm actually, I agree with you. And I disagree with you. And because it had multiple statements on it, what I agree upon is that we are the TSE should have a governance mechanism. So it is fine. We trust the project, but we should still have a mechanism of gardening it. And where I disagree. So, I mean, it's, I don't know if you want to term it as policing, but I mean, that's, I feel that's a responsibility of TSE, but I think it's a responsibility of TSE. I mean, I would consider it as a responsibility. Other than calling it as. Like, being police of all these reports. I mean, being police of all these things, right? I would. I would consider it as a responsibility than. Then. I'm. Terming it out of it. I, I, I, I, I understand where you're coming from, but I think there's a real technical challenge, which, you know, unless you have a. We're going to be stuck with the status quo, because it's not like we gave up. We didn't want to try. We did try at least repolinter. So if it's not repolinter, it's another tool. I mean, sure. I mean, since these are all publicly available repositories and. I'm so I'm looking at the API is in the past for doing it for, for building other tools. Now, within our colleges, so I can give it a try and see if it. I can do two things. Maybe probably just see if repelling to itself can be used. Or if it is easy for us to build our own tool. To mark these requirements. I can give it a try. Is that overkill. Sorry, I raised my hands. Anybody else? Thank you. I can't see. It's all right. Is it overkill? I mean, at the end of the day, right? Half of these things were designed to have a more common experience so that people could contribute to repositories in a similar fashion, right? If I recall on many of these, that's not like the badging and the other stuff, right? But so, like, yeah, projects can, look, if we have automation, that's great. I'm always good for automation and I would say you warn people, right, or whatever, right? But at the end of the day, right? If users start complaining, if somebody starts contributing to multiple repos, and you're like, hey, why isn't this one standard or whatever, that seems to be like more than us having to be the audit police on this stuff. Anyway, just my two cents. Yeah, I'm looking at the intent, unless I'm missing the intent of why we were trying to do this in the first place. Thank you. Any other opinions that people feel about this? I guess Arun is volunteering to try to develop a tool and he's asking whether we'd be interested in, you know, using a tool if there was one. Right, and we don't need to really ask projects to do anything. It would all be centralized that we just get a report at the end saying that, hey, these are the repositories, this is missing these things. And projects really don't have to do anything. Well, so I don't hear anybody or see anybody jumping saying, yeah, this is a great idea. So maybe this is not where you should spend your time is what I'm getting from this. I think in practice, you know, if there is some discrepancy, we'll address it an ad hoc way. And that's it. And if it's not found, well, maybe it's not, it's probably not that important. I mean, those things are nice to have, but they are not like this. It's not like the world is stopping. If there's a discrepancy in one repo, it doesn't break really anything. Anybody wants to say otherwise or has more to say on this? Okay, I don't see any hand up. So that's what I take from this, Arun. Okay. I suspect it's not the answer you wanted, but that's the answer you got. So it's kind of ambiguous. It means that we are making, at one hand, we are asking reports to be meant, the quarterly reports to have this information. Hey, are you following these structures? Because we mandated it through some decision-making process. And now we are saying it's time to break them. Yeah, I see your point. All right, well, we're getting close to the end. Maybe people can doodle on that thought. I'm happy to close the call on this. I do want to point out there was the badging. I think I feel bad about that one. But I know we spent quite a bit of time, Dano in particular spent quite a bit of time developing the badging proposal. Seems like everybody was interested in it. And when it came to experimenting, nobody really wants to. Dano is the only one that I know of who's actually done so. And we will have to try and make a decision on whether, OK, this was, again, something we thought would be nice, but the reality is just adds more work than people are not willing to do. But we should at some point make a decision to either move this forward or abandon it. Anyway, it's not for today. I just wanted to bring it up because when I look at the backlog, this is the most glaring one to me. That's like, oh, yeah, we really ought to close this at some point in one way or another. All right, we're out of time. I will stop it at this. Thank you all for joining and we'll talk again next week. Bye now. Bye.