 All right. Welcome everybody. It's February. Welcome to February 2nd. Hyperledger technical oversight committee call as you are probably all aware. Two things that we must abide by on this call. The first is the antitrust policy that is currently displayed on the screen. And the second is our code of conduct, which is linked in the agenda. So for our agenda today, we have some announcements. If whoever's sharing would take us to the agenda will be great. Thank you. So the first one is the standard one the Dev Weekly developer newsletter that goes out each Friday. If you have something that you would like to include in that newsletter, please leave a comment on the wiki page that is linked in the agenda. The second one. So last week we approved project reports being submitted via GitHub. Ryan, I worked on basically getting rid of all the old reports and got them migrated over to GitHub. I set up some default template for the project reports. We've actually had our first project report submitted on GitHub. So in the future, if you are somebody who files project reports, GitHub is the place for those. The third announcement that we have is that the hyperledger mentorship program has kicked off. So we're currently looking for mentorship project proposals. And if you do have a project proposal, please submit that prior to March 15. We will be having men come and talk to us in a couple weeks to tell us more about what the hyperledger mentorship program is and also to put a call out for people who would be willing to review the different project proposals that come out to get the ones that we think are kind of match the criteria that the mentorship program has. So that's in a couple weeks. But in the meantime, if you do have a project mentorship project that you would like to propose, please do so. Any other announcements that anybody has? Okay, not seeing any hands or anybody else coming off mute. I will take that as a rezoning no. As far as quarterly reports, we are still waiting on the Ursa report to come in. We did, as I mentioned, get the hyperledger statue coming in on GitHub. So I link here in the agenda about the PR and a rendered version of that report for you to take a look at. I think as of this morning. I'm sure somebody might have snuck in since the last time I looked, but when I looked, there were I think six people who had had a chance to review that and we're still waiting on five others to take a look at that. So please do take a look at that report. The hyperledger areas report came in last week and was reviewed by I think the majority of us, but any questions on any of the quarterly reports. Okay, another rezoning no. So we do also have some upcoming reports today we have the indie and the non cred that are also do. And then we have hyperledger you know how that's coming to you next week. So we will look forward to receiving those. So for discussion items, we have two discussion items. The first one is something that I added yesterday, since we were moving other things to get hub was curious if we wanted to also move the meeting agendas to get hub. And then the other agenda item that we have is the tax force proposals. I will say that there are a number of POC members who have not put their name anywhere and I don't know if that's because you're not interested or you just haven't completed the, the task to add your name to any of those task forces. Definitely important to do that. So if you want to do that here. While we're, while I'm wasting a bit of time, please do do that so that we can make sure that we know which ones we want to prioritize. But let's have a discussion about the first agenda item. Do we want to move meeting agendas to get hub or do you want them to stay on the wiki. So if you wouldn't mind opening up the proposal there, whoever sharing the screen on the meeting agendas to get hub. So, like I said, as far as other things that we're moving to get hub and to basically to see that hyper ledger.org wanted to see if we wanted to move the meeting minutes there. So, really having the chair create a request to add the meeting agenda during the meeting, having the PR modified to include any of the attendees that we have. And then after the meeting, I think have a comment about the recordings, and then just going through the process of getting approvals and getting that merged to to get hub. Right. Did you want to comment on the recordings piece. They came off mute, but we don't hear you. Okay, there. Yes. Okay. The recordings are obviously much too large to host on GitHub. So, for other reasons I've been looking into where we can store big stuff doesn't change archive.org is free place to host big things that don't change. So I was thinking about using archive.org. But I'm not married to that. The other thing that we could do is to continue to upload those to the wiki and point to the wiki. Okay. I think that the main concern is that we want to put them someplace where we won't send it so that we need to go back and listen to them. I remember just recently we had a question come up about some decision that we had taken and why did we take that. We were going to go through the recordings right to listen through kind of our reading. So I want to make sure that wherever we put the recordings we're not going to lose them. Right, which sounds very reasonable. Yeah. Tino. Yeah, is it just like for the TOC meetings this or is it like more as also to try for more general because all the other working groups and stuff is hosted on on the wiki like is there a bigger plan behind this or is it just like for this specific meeting. Yeah, so this is specifically for the TOC meeting. So if you take a look and go to TOC hyper ledger.org, you will see that we're starting to move things over there that are specifically rated related to the technical oversight committee. So we have all the governing documents we have the guidelines that we've developed over the years information for us as members who we are as well as what do we, what are we responsible for and then the project updates that we just moved over. So my thought was that we would have kind of a fifth drop down here that was the meeting minutes. We really have them all in one place. Okay, yeah, I think for for the other meetings like what I think what most benefits is of using the hyper lecture wiki although I'm always lost there is the collaborative features of it and that multiple people can add links and take notes at the same time, but I'm not sure how relevant to this. The TOC meeting notes. Good point, you know, I think there's been a couple times when we have done some collaborative editing on some documents on the wiki during this meeting, very few, I think I can probably count on one hand, the number of times that we've done that. So, probably not as important as maybe some of those other meetings, but it's something that yes worth considering. Anybody else have any thoughts on this. Bobby. So I just have a question so as a foundation are we moving away from confidence, is that like the goal of this, or is it because a lot of the other special interest groups and all those part of the trainings are get them familiar with the wiki page. And I'm just curious if that's a trend moving away from confidence as again a hyper ledger foundation. I'm going to say no. So, the, my original desire behind moving a bunch of stuff to get a bunch of historical stuff to get up was that we lost some of the foundational documents for hyper ledger. Like we don't have the original sawtooth proposal anywhere that I can find. There are a couple other documents that are missing. So I want to preserve those. And the same thing for the, for the meeting. Sorry for the project updates in the wiki. There's no, like, anyone can go in and edit these pages on the wiki. So we don't know who actually reviewed what, at what time. So that's why I wanted to move project reports over. And the the TSC. Sorry, the TOC meeting agendas are something else that we, some of them are lost time. So I, for those items. I want those there is hyper ledger moving away from confidence. And Rai, I will add to your point about things being modified after the fact so last year we had some meeting minutes where people were going through and trying to clear out their backlog of tasks that they had to review, right, for the project reports but in a lot of in more than one case, I did see that people check themselves as having attended TOC meeting that they did that attend, because we didn't, we didn't remove that as a task item for them. So, you know, I think there is a, there is some information that is in the wiki that is not actually correct. Based on the TOC meeting so very similar to what you see with the project reports potentially being modified or checked off I don't know how many times I've had to be like unchecked the fact that I've reviewed a project report but you know there's a similar sort of issue that exists with the TOC meetings today. Sorry, you find it on me a button. I think it just takes some getting used to us. There was at least two incidents in the past year where I needed to update the agenda. So I would have to in the new process, make a poor request to the agenda for that to be merged and ready for the meeting. It just feels a bit clunky, but I can see the benefit of doing this versus wiki for archiving and tracking purposes. So I'm willing to give it a try. But I think, you know, in terms of the convenience, I think there's definitely a loss of that. But at least for myself I'm willing to give this a try. And another concern that I think is worthwhile to have brought up so think about whether or not you add it to the agenda in the past and whether or not that seems like it's a potential concern for you. And other people obviously besides doing so, Marcus. Yeah. So just a quick follow up. I assume the team to see members will be made, at least the writer access so we can make a poor request directly on on this repository rather than having to fork to our wrong. I think that's undecided. I, my guess is yes. How is it today. I can't tell you off the top of my head how it's set up. How could it be exactly as you said, I would just need to change the permissions to make it that way and basically do the auto branch create thing when you want to make an edit. Very cool. Thanks for me. Thanks. I think the other thing we might consider is whether or not a draft PR would allow you to edit it directly. To edit the files that were were added. Or alternatively just to make the use the suggestion option right to suggest adding or modifying and then having the person, the chair who created it right except that suggestion. Marcus. Thanks. So I absolutely see the benefits of maintaining the history of those documents a little bit better. Maybe we should consider putting the stature on a blockchain instead of GitHub. No, just joking. Have you also considered to use the GitHub wiki, which I guess is a little bit easier to maintain when multiple people would like to add things quickly. Because I can also see the additional overhead of, I mean, adding addition to this pending PR. Depending on the personal preferences how to use git, I guess. And that could be complicated. And my experience with the proposals or the what you just mentioned Tracy, when you suggest a change if then the PR creator except those. Sometimes this results in an awkward. Merge issues at this is of my experience. So I'm going to try the GitHub wiki for some other things like that. Yes, Marcus I've used. I'm using a GitHub wiki right now with another project. I think the reason. So, so there were those were two. Okay, that was one of the two options that I considered one of the three options I guess I considered was the wiki that the concern I have with the wiki and I don't know if it's the case but I don't think we can show the wiki on to see that hyperledger.org. Yeah, that that was I think my concern there and then the second one. Also the same concern that I can considered and throughout was just creating an issue that we could track the meeting agenda on. Again, we can't display the issue on to see that hyperledger.org, which is why I went to this process of PR, which yeah is a bit more challenging but would allow us to display those. On to see that hyperledger that one. Yeah, I see. But so your personal preference would be I mean going this PR route. In terms of I mean if you think about the additional get overhead you need to do. I mean for the wiki you can do everything in the browser for creating a PR you have to do something in the terminal, depending on personal preferences of get. For me, I guess I don't, I didn't necessarily care whether or not we move over to the PR or we stick with conflicts. But it was, are we trying to move everything over so therefore let's make this a suggestion that question and see what people think right like if you guys decide this is the worst idea in the world treaty. I'm perfectly happy to say great let's close it and move on. I, I really, I'm really not tied to whether or not we have to do this or not. I'm, you know, presenting it as there are reasons to do it. But I'm not tied to one way or the other. Yeah, I just like to comment about the get overhead. Really this is nothing. GitHub was quite a few facilities for doing things in line so to speak. And there's a little bit of automation web UI that can be done. If not, it can be self hosted, but at least partially with a script that removes the overhead entirely. But the issue is that people, large amounts of people in hyper ledger has a lot of contributors is whether or not we want people spending extra time doing this. I'd also raise that confidence has a very different syntax, meaning that if we have the technical proposals and how can be, and it is in markdown, transform it into a format in which we could also hosted on the hyper ledger wiki is comparable to writing the thing from the ground up. And the poor request allows us to use the markdown syntax might actually save people time, not counting that we can also remove the get overhead by custom solution. So, in any respect, it's, it's reasonable. I think that the poor request workflow has more advantages in terms of developer convenience, let's just say, just to comment. Thank you. Appreciate that. Any other thoughts or comments on this. Do we think we want to vote on this. And if we do is there somebody who would like to make a motion. I can motion to pass this. Thanks, Jim. Do we have a second. Second. All right, I know, Marcus, I think you're wrong when you were the other ones to second it. Thank you for that. Alrighty, let's do it. Let's do a voice vote, because I'm not sure that everybody's behind this and so I want to make sure we, we know where we stand. Do you mean a roll call vote vote. Yes, please. Thank you. Okay, on the matter before the to see a rune. Yes. Bobby. Yeah. David. Yes. Jim. Yes. Marcus. Yes. Peter. I guess. Timo. Yes. Tracy. Yes. Rama. Yes. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. The eyes have it. All right. Great. All right, so let's move on to the task force. Issues that we've created. Let's see if we've got some updates behind these. So I think we'll just go through these one by one and see if we've got any support for these. Okay. Okay. So with the supported projects, we have. Myself who signed up. So that's probably not one we're going to prioritize. For the badging life cycle. We have Rama and Bobby signed up for that one. For the next one here, the security artifact. We have Marcus, Arnaud and Hart that have signed up security vulnerability. We have Rama, Arnaud and Hart. For the onboarding. We have Bobby who signed up to be a leader and myself and Bobby as participants. The documentation Bobby has also signed up to be a leader and we have Rama and myself as participants, plus obviously Bobby. The project best practices, Rama and myself. And then for the last one here, the best practices. There's not great in there. I mean, Marcus and Dave and you know, so just looking at that. Yeah, Roma, you have a question. And I just a comment. I believe Peter's invocation this week so he may sign up for some of these many returns. I know I did discuss with them about documentation so he might be interested in joining that one. Great. Thank you for that. And I know Stephen also mentioned in his chat, the hyper leather to see for this meeting that he was going to update the documentation and the pipeline ones for that. Now, did we have everybody on the call. Every TOC member on the call sign up for task forces or do we have to add anybody to any of these past courses to make sure that we've got to complete this. Hey, Tracy, I just added myself to two of them. Okay, which two Jim. That was secure artifacts signing and best practices for projects. Okay, great. Thank you. And Tracy I had my name on project best practices to. Tracy, I want to add myself. I'll be adding after this call, but yes, I think heart also mentioned on the chart that it can be anybody outside the TOC as well. Yes, for sure. For sure. Anybody outside the TOC can can sign up. Arun, are there specific ones that you're thinking about adding your name to so that we can get kind of an accurate count of where people are at. Yes, so I'll be signing up for security, both the task forces and on the onboarding content. These three are potential. But I'll go through and I don't. That's fine. That's fine. Thank you, Arun. Okay, anybody else who hasn't had a chance or not in after I went through those. So based on that, I think where we're at is for sure the onboarding content and the documentation and the security task force seems to be, and I think it was the vulnerability disclosure one heart that you said you wanted to prioritize. Yes, Tracy, that was my opinion since I've sort of done some background on that one with the open SSF. And with, you know, if there's massive momentum towards another one, you know, we could start with that one too. Okay. All right, and then I think the other one that might have had a lot. Yeah, it was the project best practices, they be signed up for leader. Okay, that's why I didn't touch your name. Instead of the leader. So great. So, I know that we have leaders for the documentation onboarding and best practices. I think we necessarily have a leader, Arun, are you still, I know you were the leader for the security task force. Previously, is that something that you're still interested in doing or not. Yes. Okay, great. So I think we've got kind of the four out of the eight, which is kind of where we wanted to end up any objections or thoughts that I missed something as I was going through there that we should have been focusing on besides those four. No, okay. So I guess what I'd like to do and is to continue kind of the process that we had last last year, where we spend the first half an hour of the TOC calls on TOC topics, assuming we have any and the rest of the time on the task force discussions. Now, by doing that, we have four that means that we have meetings at least once a month for these task forces, but that does not preclude us from having meetings in between the time that the TOC, it's discussed at the TOC. Right. So if you want to have off cycle meetings, you can have off cycle meetings. If you're not, then it's probably going to take you a bit longer to make it through some of these tasks. But I think it's really important that it not only be a TOC meeting that we're discussing these but that work gets done outside of that as well. With that, I think that the idea here would be to create some sort of order for going through these. And I don't know if any of the leaders would like to volunteer to step up first. Yeah, Roma question. Yes, quick question. In the past, do you have you started separate discord channels for each of these. So people can discuss. We have. Yes. Yes, we have and we can do that again. We can create passports channels for each of these so that people can have their offline discussions there, as well as, you know, any sort of meetings that they might have. Bobby. Well, for the documentation and the onboarding of learning materials working group kind of has stepped up the members to help out with that along with David, and I believe that the plan is to maybe meet where the learning materials development working group used to for those two task forces and maybe put like onboarding on one Monday and then the documentation on another and then report back to the TSC, I would say in like two or three months for the final report on which everyone is closest. And then after that two more months report on the next one. If that makes sense, I can put that in a document and solidify that schedule. Yeah, Bobby, I think it's great to meet on the off TOC meetings, I think that's perfect. I do think that it's worthwhile to bring back the discussion so on a more frequent basis to the TOC so that any input that the TOC might have can be had before right things are finalized if you will. Or even help because I think it's important that that the TOC is is involved in these topics as well. Would you suggest, well, I guess there's right now for or five task force would you suggest that they rotate weekly so every week one of the task force catches the TOC up on what's happening. That's correct. So, exactly. I think there's four right I think we've got the security vulnerability disclosure, they're actually all kind of together the onboarding content the documentation and the project best practices. So, number 484746 and 45 as they're listed here. And so what I would like to do is create an order for those to come into the TOC. Right. We can start with the security vulnerability disclosure, have discussions in the TOC as well as their off cycle meeting. Then the next week would be maybe the onboarding content and so on and so forth. Right. Sounds good. Is there is there a preference for where we want to start or shall we just say those are the order that we're going to go in. No preference. Okay, let's call that the order that we're going to go through these in at the TOC. Definitely, I'll create some channels for us to discuss these items. If you are the leader of these task forces and you're going to set up a meeting off cycle, or when you would be coming into the TOC and discussing. Let that channel know so that people can join and participate in those discussions. If you are the leader of these task forces, make sure I captured the information properly so that if there's something that we're supposed to be delivering on that I didn't capture or you think I overstepped in what we're supposed to be delivering on please fix that so that it's correct. Questions. Comments. Okay, any other topics that anybody would like to discuss today. I'm not sure where we like to jump into any of these task forces and see if there's anything that we can talk about already or are we at a point where we think we're good. Bobby. Well, I know for the two that I'm leading I need time to organize so. I guess we're the documentation would be first and that's in two weeks. So I'll have a report in two weeks. Okay. And Bobby, definitely reach out to once I set the channel, chat channels up reach out there, ask questions of the participants to have signed up for this. And again, as was mentioned, if there's anybody on this call because I do see that we have some non TOC members on the call which very much appreciate you guys joining us. If you would like to participate in these task forces. Please join us and add your thoughts and ideas. Thanks Tracy. So talking about the security stuff really briefly. Particularly for the vulnerability disclosure task force. I just wanted to mention that the open SSF has a bi weekly working group focused on vulnerability disclosure reporting. And once we have the chat channels up and everything I'll post the information there. And if you're interested in security stuff, I would highly recommend that you attend their meeting, which is at 8am Pacific on Wednesdays. So an hour after this time but on Wednesdays. You know, I think they're doing a lot of interesting stuff, but it's not exactly what we need in terms of coming up with a template for a policy that lets projects sort of easily determine, you know, a good vulnerability disclosure policy that fits for them. So I think this is also an opportunity where we can push back some output to the open SSF as well we can say hey, you know we did this. This is what we determine sort of actually works in the wild and you should, you know, use this for your project as well. So I'm sort of excited by the, you know, cross Linux foundation synergy here. And if you have a chance and you're interested I would definitely recommend attending that meeting. So thanks. I remember, maybe it was you Marcus and our first meeting that we had this year where you were talking about those cross project kind of synergies and working with other projects to see best practices and those sorts of things. So I think it's definitely a really interesting topic area for us to start to explore what that looks like as as the TOC and as hyper ledger and these other projects wanted to communicate and work together. Any other comments, questions and heart. Did they, did they just have the security working group for the vulnerability disclosure this Wednesday or was it, is it going to be next Wednesday. This last Wednesday and next Wednesday so not this week. Okay, so is it do you still think it's okay for us to start with that one next week as far as as far as bringing it to the TOC and having a discussion. Sure, I may have trouble making the meeting next week but as long as other people are comfortable talking about it. I think it's fine. And a room obviously as the leader. I think that question also ends up going towards you as well. Yes, thanks. I'll join the next week's Wednesdays call as well. Great. Cool. All right, any other comments, questions before we close out. So thank you all for your participation, and we will be meeting again next week. So have a great week. And we will talk to you then. Thanks a lot Tracy. Thanks Tracy. Bye.