 Floors, yours are now. All right. Thank you, Ray. Hello, everyone. This is the TSC call. It's open to everyone to participate. There are two requirements, though. You need to be aware of the anti-trust notice, which is currently displayed on the shared screen. For those who are online, if you're on the phone, please make it a duty to go and learn it by heart. But there is also the cut of conduct that he says to participate in a constructive matter and a decent matter. Don't be a jerk. So with that housekeeping taken care of, I wanted to open the floor in case there was any announcements. I didn't have any on my end. I had added one in there. If you reload, it'll come up, I think. Yeah, so I just want to do a quick, this is Dave Huesby. I want to do a quick update on the calendar, the public calendar migration. You can publish your updates. He updated the minutes, not the, so this is the thing. Oh, sorry. Yeah, sorry. I did it in the minutes, not the agenda. So that's what he wants to show you. Yeah, so the calendar or public meetings, if you scroll down there, that top one there is starting to look pretty full. The good news is that most groups have moved over. And if you haven't moved over, you've received an email from me. And of the people who have received an email from me, I've seen probably 80% of them come back saying, yep, we're on it. So I would anticipate by the end of the year we can delete the old one. We're getting really close. The most exciting thing here is the community calendar now captures way more meetings than the old community calendar. And it seems like it was a success. We're reflecting reality much more now. And that's pretty much it. If you haven't heard from me or if you haven't done your calendar and you haven't heard from me yet, you will hear from me very soon. I think there's only a couple more groups I need to email on some special interest groups. But that's it. I just wanted to report back that it was looking like it was a clean migration and took a little longer than we thought. But yeah, that's our course. So the events here in purple are the ones, the meetings here in purple are the ones that have not, I don't know why I just switched to debut, are the ones that have not yet moved? Well, I haven't gone through and deleted all the ones that I got emails for this week. So yeah, I did some of them. A bunch of purple should go down. Yeah, I'm just saying, there are some. So please pay attention to your email. You get email from Dave. He's a nice guy. Help him out. It's all right. Did you also get rid of the duplicates? Because like right there, it shows two interoperative discussion at 9 and 14. There isn't such things. Yeah, that seems to be a mistake by the people who scheduled that. I think two separate people from that group scheduled them, and they didn't get the times right. So there was a couple of duplicates I needed to track down. I was just trying to get the groups over first and then make a sanity pass on it. OK, I'm going to tell you first and experience. I have tried to attend some meetings and groups that I don't regularly follow. And then you show up and there's nobody and you're like, what's going on? And you're being told, oh, no, it's not this weekend. They just don't have the calendar right. OK, so which one in particular, you just mentioned one. Which one were you talking about? Application day. The brick interoperative. There's one scheduled for 7 AM and one scheduled for like 1 PM. Yeah, yeah. OK, cool. So it's good to get everybody on, but we also should clean it up so that we don't have duplicates and whatnot. Yep, there's still some training that needs to happen, I think. OK. All right, that's it. Thanks, everybody, for helping out. Yeah, that's good. I was actually wondering what the status was. You just get it to us. Thanks. Anything else? Just as for your information, I expect us to have another meeting next week and then we'll be off for the holidays. So quarterly reports. We just received one for Iris. I don't expect people to have the chance to really look at it. I did. Nothing really strikes me as urgent anyway. So we'll leave it there until next week, at least, and give people a chance to read it and ask questions if they have any. Quilt. The other two have not been submitted. We received an email that quilled that they will publish it for next week. So I'll follow up on that next week. So with this, yes. This is Jay from TWGC. And I just submitted our update today. We can certainly postpone that to next week. People still want to see it. See how many men see it yet. All right, yeah, we'll postpone to next week because unless there is something outstanding, you want to bring it to our attention right away. Otherwise, we can just give people a chance to look at it offline first. Okay, I mean, just probably just one item that we have completed a translation for February 1.4 this week. And we will be discussing how to present that through Read the Docs next week with February Maintainers. So I believe this translation has been going on for a while. And I believe this has been a milestone for our working group. And we will continue to work for February 2.0 and probably some other projects. Okay, thank you. All right, so without further ado, I'd like us to move on to the discussion part of the meeting. There is a... So we will see how far we can go and depending on the time it takes. But we might be able to do more, I don't know. But there are a few items I wanted to bring up. The first one is one that Hart brought up in email. And it's actually, in a sense, I see this very much as a follow-up to an issue that Silona raised a few weeks ago, which we never really got to the bottom of. We kind of left her hanging, I'm afraid. Which was, you know, how do we actually implement all the decisions that are being made during those TSE calls? And how do we capture the status quo of the compendium of all the decisions we've made over time? And so Hart pointed out, it remains difficult. So now we have this decision log, which I think has improved things quite a bit, but not everything is in there. And if you're just looking for what you're supposed to do next, depending on your situation, it may not be the easiest to look through those. And you kind of have to figure out what the title might be and all this. So Hart brought up this idea that maybe we should have a document or a set of documents that are easy to find that captures the status quo. And if we make changes, they should translate into dates to the documents. I mean, that's nothing, you know, fundamentally new under the moon. But I think there are different ways we can go at it. We could create a document which captures everything. So we can compile all the different wiki pages we have out there and kind of make one document. Or we could have maybe a section in the wiki with all the documents parked there as child pages, I guess, of that so that they would all be into one space that's easy to find. So I don't know what the technique is, but I do think there is, you know, the point definitely has merit. So with that, I'd like to turn to you guys and Hart maybe if you want to say more. Sure, I'd be happy to say more. Basically right now a lot of our rules, at least in terms of documentation or conflicting, we say one thing, one place in what is, you know, ostensibly an official TSC document, we say something entirely different in another place. And as you correctly summarized, it would be nice if we had either a single document or a collection of documents with common indexing that sort of were the official constitution or bylaws or whatever you want to call it, where we could quickly and easily refer people to rules. You know, it would just make it a lot easier for people to sort of know what's going on and know the rules they had to follow, which right now is kind of difficult. I think we've sort of, you know, we've gotten by in the past because most of the people doing most of the stuff were the same people that sort of created the rules in the early day. But now, you know, it was hyperledges grown, which is a great thing. A lot of the people coming in and doing some of the new stuff aren't as aware of the rules. So we should make things easy for people to follow. I agree. Silona, I'm going to turn to you. What, I mean, what do you say about this? I kind of put you on the spot earlier by saying that, you know, we had not followed up on your point, which I think was very related to this. Am I right? Is this something the staff can help us with? No, I think so. So there's, I think there's two major options. One of them that I brought up before that wasn't very popular, was moving it into GitHub and doing a repo for it. But I can also, you know, rethinking it, create a special space in the Wiki where I can lock it down, except for comments. And so that, and also put the polling on it so that maybe we can edit it a little bit more finely. And so that way, what I could do is I could try to move it all over into this Wiki space and then we review it as a group, preferably offline first, and then we could come together and vote on any of the little pieces that we need to resolve. Like the fact that right now we've kind of got a catch-22 loop happening between releases and active statuses. And so what we could do, so I could do either one of those. I could do either a GitHub repo where everything would be a pull request or we could put it in the Wiki and I could attach some special things on the Wiki, like first of all locking it down to TSC moments only and making it open to other people, of course, to read and make comments, but they can't edit. And then, and so I could do something along those, along that realm as well. And both of those I would recommend rather than, because like right now it's kind of scattered and there's a lot of different stuff going on. And what we could do is in that space on the Wiki is whenever the edits are coming through, we could ask people to please refer to the decision log as to where this is coming from and where that edit is and cross refer on the Wiki to those pieces. Because I think there's always gonna be a conflict between that implementation and the decision-making because implementations sometimes have to be simplified for people to understand and do what they need to do. So if I do create the forms, there will be a discussion as to what that form, that field in the form is gonna be called so that people feel like it's accurate or what that field description needs to be. So I'd like to have something where I can have more concrete feedback for that. Yeah, thank you. So I agree with what you said. When we got to whether we use a Wiki or GitHub repo, I don't really have a preference, but I feel like if you do the work, you should be first-chooser, but let me ask everybody else. Does anybody have a strong opinion one way or another? I don't necessarily have a strong opinion. I will say that currently on the Wiki, the ones that I moved over from the old Wiki, the governing documents were labeled as such. So at the top of each Wiki page, that's a governing process document at the time of the old Wiki conversion. There's a comment at the top that says, this is a hyperledger governing process document. Do not modify without first getting approval. That might make it easier to move over the original governing documents. Obviously it doesn't make it easier to move over all the decisions that have been made since that point. I was going to say that I don't have a strong preference over Wiki or GitHub, but the only thing is wherever people are going to now, it would be better to maybe stick with whatever, if people navigate to GitHub more often. I mean, we don't have anything for the TSE there, but I want to kind of reduce the number of jumps a person has to make for the websites they have to open and log into. Yeah, it doesn't matter to me either, but what I do want to ensure is that there is either a single document or multiple documents in a single place with common indexing, right? Where we number, you know, there's a numbering system that runs across all the documents. One of the things we've done right now is that we've issued a bunch of different documents and some of them are contradictory. So we need a system that makes sure that doesn't happen. Yeah, I mean, an editor would normally be required to do that. And I have Selona's team is going to be the editors. So the numbering shouldn't be an issue, whichever tool we use. So I don't know, I mean, as I said, it might be easier to piggyback on top of the Wiki because a lot of the content we have today is on the Wiki. So you might be able to refactor some of those pages more easily, but as I said earlier, I don't really care. It's up to the editor who's going to do the work if they prefer one way or the other. I mean, I'm not concerned about, you know, people making changes that they are supposed to make or whatever. I think that's a bit like, well, we have a Wiki that has a history and that's how we keep track of not people fooling with the system, but... So the thing about, pardon me, munging everything together doesn't necessarily fix it, right? If they're inconsistencies, they're still there. Who's numbered them? No, I agree. So that means the process when I'm hearing Selona's talking about earlier is that, you know, they would go through the process of putting all the bits together and highlighting where they see conflicts. And in any case, we would have a review by everybody to, you know, possibly find more. And then those would be up for discussions and we resolve the conflicts. And the editors would then implement the decisions we make. So all of that can happen either way, but it will later happen indeed. It, I mean, if this is going to be done, though, it seems to me like you just, you need a task force of people to go off and do it, right? It's a piece of work. I'm down with a guiding task force that would make my life a lot easier, Chris. Chris, you've read my mind, I was going to suggest a task force. I mean, I don't, I mean, because again, I think, you know, if there are inconsistencies and you can't just sort of, you know, randomly pick one, you have to, you know, I think it's going to take a bit of, did we mean this or did we mean that? And which one was, you know, came first? But I think those need to be raised as the issues to the TSE. Right, exactly. But I mean, I mean, I'm fine if we want to put it all into one big governing, you know, thing. But I don't think it changes a lot, frankly. No, I think the point was really, you know, they should all be in one space, you need to find. Okay, well, there's also an index of stuff from the TSE. I mean, the other thing is we also have several, like we have several places that describe like the exit, you know, what you need for a 1.0 release and they're different in all of these multiple places. So I just think, you know, maybe I'm wrong, but I think that if we only have this in one place, it will reduce the chances of this kind of thing happening again. Because there will only be one place where this thing is described officially. And it gives others coming in a clear place to go, right? Because they know, oh, this is where the official documents reside. I'll go read through them all. You know, for example, talking with Explorer, you know, he was like, well, what is the thing? And I'm like, well, I said, I don't exactly know. And he was like, what? And I'm like, well, we have all of these different documents, but right now they're somewhat contradictory. And I'm like, oh, we have this vote here, but then it contradicts this previous one here. And then we have this one over here. And I think when you do put things all in one place, it's partially for the TSE, but it's also for the other people trying to figure out what the rules are. If they know that there's one centralized place to go read the things that are hard and fast, it makes it a lot more usable for them. And so this is also a question of usability. And that's why I get a little bit iffy about my interpretations, because I know how to make things usable, but I don't always feel like when I capture making things usable, that it always gets all the nuances that are happening in regards to the TSE decisions. And I think that's, for example, why we had some of the problems that we've had previously is because it's not capturing that. And it's also not creating a good feedback place for them to also give feedback into y'all's processes too, like for Quilt going, but I'm just a protocol and 1.0 isn't a major release in ILP. In fact, it's not even an alpha release in ILP. ILP is at 28 right now and they do single number increments. And so all those different things would be easier if we had a centralized place for communications. Okay, so I don't hear any disagreement. We just need to decide on how we go at it. Silona, since you would be, or your team would be the first in line to work on this, I would like you to make a proposal for next week and how you want to proceed, what you think would be the best, depending on the people, you know, whether they prefer Wiki or GitHub, I don't think we care much. And so I think make a proposal on how you would do this. I think we all agree some work has to be done to put all the, you know, go around and fish all the pieces, put them together and highlight the problem. We do have a process to raise issues to the TSE. If a task force would be helpful, please explain what the task force role will be and we can look at that. I think the first thing to do for me would be to have a task force and we go on the Wiki first because we could start from the Wiki and if we decide to move to GitHub, that's fine as well. It's just that that way I could start with, I could just move everything over and then we could start chopping away at it. And then if we did, and then if we get it to where we're like, ooh, this is really good, then we're not playing on doing a lot of changes, then if we want to move it to GitHub, we could. But I think right now, before you move stuff, I think, you know, it's, I think it's fine to start with a draft document that munges a bunch of stuff, cut and pasted together. I don't know if we want to move stuff yet because it's going to be a work in progress and I don't think we want to have people relying on was essentially a work in progress. I hear you on the other end where we are is not good, well, okay, but it's not, I mean, come on, it's not, it's not horrible, really. I mean, there's some inconsistencies, but it's not like we're saying black is white. That's okay, I mean. There's some pretty clear places where we're saying black is white. No, I don't think so. Can you cite them? Yeah, so like some of the exit criteria stuff, if you've read my emails, there's some places where we say like, you know, oh, you don't need TSC approval for a 1.0, you know, it's, there's some places where we say completely contradictory things. Okay, but I think Chris's point is fine. You see, Lona, you can just create a new document by copy-pasting the pieces. You don't have to touch the existing one necessarily until we're ready to pull that through. But I think that- That being said, sorry. Start point is the task force to have clear problem statement. And then also outlay the other things that the task force, we said the task force should have like a target date and things like that. Yes. One of the things I hear Chris saying is that assembling the things maybe isn't the problem. And I hear other people saying, well, assembling things is the problem. So it's not really a matter of organization. And then we had a previous discussion about we had clarified some of these rules, but then those clarifications never made it back into the documents. So there's potentially like three different things people are talking about here. I agree. This is why I see Lona, I'm going to get back to you. I don't want to spend more time on this now. Please come up next week if possible with the proposal for a task force that would be helpful to you to make progress on this. To make progress on what? I mean, if I interpret Hart's original thing, the fact is Hart saying, hard of paraphrasing, but the root of the problem I think Dan said as well. For getting the fact that it's spread out not in one place or whatever, there is no, there does not seem to be a actual governance document that people can go look at. Yes, we all agree. There's multiple of them contradicting information or whatever. There is no consistent, straight, whatever. Here's what you read. Go to Apache. They have a release thing. They have a maturity model. They have clear, concise pages. That's it. We don't have it. We all agree that's what we want to do. The question is that we get there. Okay, but then the real thing says, then what's the content of that? So you have one. So who's going to determine the content of what that should be? Because if you just want to move crap around, who cares? Let's be clear. The TSC decides it's our content, but how we make that up can be in two stages. You can have a task force that's helping Silona's team to put the content together, to bring it back to the TSC with some highlighted issues when there's conflict and they don't know which it's supposed to be. That's it. But as that goes on, the task force requires some framework that we can proposal that we agree to. So I say, if we need to have a task force, if Silona wants one, then she should make a proposal and we can agree to approve it next week. Hopefully faster than this. Silona, I'm putting the burden on you. I need you to tell me it's okay. I see the burden, but I'm not exactly sure what is the direction because my inclination is to go and create something like Apache or Oasis where we do have the different guidelines. They are all defined out. They do have a versioning process and all that type of typical stuff in place that Gary was just talking about. Yes, but I said you can either do it on your own, but you said you want a task force that guides you. So I say, if you want a task force, make a proposal for that. Either way works for me. Alrighty, I'll make a task force proposal for next week. Thank you. All right, so let's move on guys. The three other agenda items are somewhat related. At the end of last week, we had a collaborative discussion around the active status and the first major releases and in the context of Bezu and Explorer and whatnot. And I said, okay, I took three issues out of the discussion that we need to address. They are somewhat related because depending how we choose to go on one or the other, it may render the other one's mood. But I thought we should capture those issues and make decisions on them. So the order is somewhat related to the fact that in which I put them in the agenda is really just the fact that I think, if we make some decision, the others will be simpler or go away. So the first one is the notion that basically heart brought up, which is this notion of fact is status. It seems to always hinge in the end around this community diversity criteria. And we've seen again and again, projects struggle with it and this criteria is somewhat subjective. So the idea was, well, why don't we get out of the business of telling the world how the community is doing, just provide them with data as much as possible so people can make their own assessment. But in terms of the process, we don't have to do this anymore. So not doing this in practice when you look at the project lifecycle, what it comes down to is really, I don't think we want to remove the active status. It just means that we really remove the incubation status because essentially you have a proposal for a project and we say, yes, okay, we accept it, you're therefore inactive status. And we basically get rid of the incubation because otherwise the next step is like retired or something. And so to me, that's really translating to removing incubation from project lifecycle. So that's the proposal I put together. I'm not saying I'm actually personally lobbying for it, but I think this is the proposal that came out of the discussion and the point raised by Hart and email in his long email, although interesting. And so this is a bit maybe provocative, but that's the proposal is, what if we got rid of incubation state altogether? That's a terrible idea. Okay, so explain. I second the idea that that's a terrible idea. Again, right? I can look at where we originally were, and look, I'm only one who, like I look at stuff that I find out there that's interesting. How can a project come in? So if you don't have an incubation stage, then that means that you wouldn't bring something in until it meets whatever rules get established in the previous task force that was being established to create rules that are different than the existing rules. Right? Cause the whole thing is you can't, if you don't meet the rules, you can't be a project. Okay. Then you want to expand on your position. Yeah, so I think most organizations, like ours have some sort of life cycle like this with something like an incubation stage. And for me, it makes sense that usually a project has started from outside of that community, often by a single company. And there's an offer to bring that project into the community and expand it with community and sort of become if nothing else under the brand of that community organization. So it's going to always take time to do that. And there's going to be a set of characteristics that it takes on to become part of that community. So I think it makes sense to keep the life cycle for the way that we already have there. All right, thank you. Anybody else? And Hart, I'm going to bring you because of, you know, prompt you because I mean, that came from you and I will claim that this captures what you actually brought up in email. And then I know we had an exchange in the wiki where on the one end you were saying, yeah, that's pretty good, but I don't think we're ready for it. And then the other you're like, yeah, but we shouldn't get in the business of, you know, assessing community. So, which way do you want it? I'm happy to talk. I don't think we're ready for it, even though you seem to want this. Solota, go ahead. So what I was going to say is I posted in chat a little bit that one of the things that might be interesting to look at is creating, instead of requiring all these requirements to pass into active in regards to community diversity, instead designing a specific dashboard which shows the ongoing reports in regards to that diversity and figuring out what those metrics are and giving all of those metrics to LFIT for designing a new dashboard for us in Kibana. It'll take a while because as you can see this brand, we're finally getting metrics and it's brand new and it's beta and all that, but it would give us an ongoing pulse in regards to how each of those are doing. And then there's also the idea of expanding labs for the incubation process. Accenture is bringing in both of theirs as labs first. I'm hoping that some of their stuff will expand into being projects, but it might be that we look at labs a little bit more in-depth, that these are all just process things that we could possibly look at for handling some of this, but they're options. All right, thank you. Yeah, I think in the past we had looked at just insisting that new projects come in first as labs and then continue on the path. And I think we've decided earlier in the year not to go down that route. Yeah, that's a frequent route and a lot of other organizations is to require labs first, just to basically so that you can do an overview of the code, that you can sit there and do all the licensing scanning and you can do all that stuff long before anything comes all the way over. Yeah, yeah, but I really don't want us to reopen this. We went through this as Dan points out. We made a decision unless somebody has new information they want to reopen this. I don't want to spend time on this. But so part of the reason I brought this up, this proposal to forego the incubation state is because I think it is useful to also record if that's what we want to say, no, we don't want to forego incubation state. And then there's another possibility, which is not there, but which is we could keep incubation and remove the diversity criteria from the active status. And it blurs some of the things we were trying to do that between the maturity of the project and the product, but there's still a possibility. So let's just keep that in mind. For now, I'm not trying to make a decision today. I wanted to bring it up. I'd like to encourage people to express themselves on the wiki. And I just wanted to put it on the agenda so we could give it a bit of airtime and get people to start thinking about it. So unless anybody has something else to say about this specifically, I would like to move on. The only thing I have to add or know is I think it would be a bad idea. If we kept incubation and got rid of the diversity requirement, I think that's one of the major things that we always talk about when we talk about something going from incubation to active. And if we've removed that criteria, then the question goes back to why don't we just remove incubation, right? So if we're keeping it, it seems like we should keep all of it. I hear you and it's a bit of a stretch for me to go down that path because I was one of the proponent of separating those two dimensions of the project versus the product. But I could see a world where you say, no, we are not dealing with the community aspect at all. We are dealing with the project. Is it organized? Do they have the CEI? Do they have the test? Do they have the license to copyright? All this stuff sorted out. Do they use all the right tools and all that? If they do, well, now they are considered to be part of hyperledger and inactive product status. And therefore, they can stop having first major releases, for instance. And then the community diversity angle is left completely outside of this whole thing. And we deal with this in a different way. So Arno, I think Tracy is right in that if you read my email, I go through this and I explain that everything except the community diversity metric is either implicitly covered in the project proposal document itself or the 1.0 exit criteria. So if we just, I mean, well, this is at least my interpretation because this goes back to the documentation issue that the documentation issues across these are wildly inconsistent. But at least from my reading, the only unique thing that the active status brings that's not covered by the others is the community diversity metric. And I would like to say, like, I'm not, you know, this was intended to be somewhat controversial and I'm totally open to being persuaded that we do need active status. But if so, I would like to see a better way than what we currently have to handle the community diversity metric because right now it's pretty clear that people trying to make proposals for active status have no clear idea on what this means. Right. So that's a good segue to the other issues I have listed. So there's one which is, okay, assuming we're keeping the incubation and active status, you know, should we release the requirement for first major release to be an active status? And the other one, which is very much on the point that Hodges touched on, which is, okay, this diversity criteria is a bit of an issue. People have different interpretation and is there a way we could define it better? And I think the point has been made. I've made it myself, Tracy, I think made it on the wiki that, you know, if you come up with any kind of formula to define diversity, you're gonna be able to game it if you want to. So, nothing is bleak, but yeah. I just went and looked at what Apache says. And it basically says what we have, which is the diversity, right? It doesn't give you a number, it's not like some percentage threshold you cross and all of a sudden you're active. It just says it can't be dominated by a single employer and that the members of the PMC are individuals and not sort of corporate, yada, yada, yada. It's pretty hand-wavy, right? And so basically, you have to come back and you have to sort of demonstrate that you're not just being controlled by a single member. And that the community has got a certain amount of diversity of who's contributing and who's on the PMC and so forth, but there's no numbers. So I don't understand why we're looking for some concrete number, because there isn't one, but there is going to be some clear signal that something is, you know, or isn't. And it's not a matter of going backwards or forwards, it's really a matter of, are we moving beyond just having one company doing all the work? Now, again, I'm not thrilled with where some of the projects are that are inactive status, frankly, right? But that's not really relevant. But at the end of the day, I mean, I guess we can argue it in there, but at the end of the day, but also in a pasty, right? They also wanna, they also say that it's really, you know, reviewing over time that you didn't do anything that prevented that you didn't not allow people to come in. Yeah, right, you demonstrated a certain sort of independence is what they, yeah. Yeah, right, I mean, I don't know, I mean, right? I mean, you can make the decision that, I mean, it's fine if we wanna say that that's the final criteria. I look, I'm not for or against that or whatever, right? I think people need to take a long step back and think about what we have here and think about, you know, the base that's out there. Like I don't actually think, for example, that the consensus team or the Pegasus team, which everyone you wanna call them, is doing something to prevent people from joining Bessu. No, I agree. I think that we have a community base of people who come out here and who just want to use product and not contribute to product. Well, projects because I think we produce products. Anyway, I'm gonna get off that high horse, but I still think that we propagate a false premise of what artifacts are actually released by the projects that are here. Hyperledger does not produce products. And if we wanna talk about releases, we should actually think about what a release is. A release isn't a freaking Docker image. You know, Apache states what their stuff is. It's just the release source code that can be built, whatever, along with a signature file. And projects could create binary artifacts. We don't even have a standard place to put releases. We don't even have a thing that we call a release other than it's a tag or a release number, sorry. Like I don't get, like we don't really do anything here actually to govern release or whatever, tell anybody the state of code other than that you pass the, you know, I think the licenses and everything else. So not sure half the time what we're trying to do here because we don't make everybody follow the same rules. They're really not that clear. And we don't actually have anything defined as what a release is, other than a number. As we start to drift out of the original topic. But they're all related, Dan. Yeah, but what I think what I would like to see is that since some of the feedback that Hart put together is related to the original, the earlier topic that the documentation needs to be cleaned up for our governance model. I'd like to see us go ahead and let that process run its course and then come back to some of these questions about diversity and other clarifications on life cycle once the other task is complete. Because I think they just are interrelated and they're also always going to be subjective. So I think we just end up wasting a lot of time going in circles on things that are interrelated. Meanwhile, we might give ourselves some more time to actually start creating technical topics and getting to those and some of those might be related to what Gary was just bringing up about processes for release artifacts and infrastructure and all that sort of thing. Yeah, one point I will make with regard to what Gary was talking about is Gary, now you are a member of the TSE and you're welcome to make proposal on how you want things to change to make them better according to you. With that said, I want to get back to the diversity criteria. So that's the last issue I have on the agenda. And quite frankly, I don't know what it would be, but I don't want to speak for the Bezier team. Necessarily they can speak for themselves. I see Dano and Grace for instance and so on. What I heard them say is we'd like to have a clear idea of what we are to achieve. And on the other end, I've heard the TSE say, well, we've told you before we need you project not to rely entirely on the single entity. And then there's the subjective aspect which comes into play, which is, you know, well, how do you assess that? So I heard them say, we'd like to have a more precise definition that we can meet. And I'm hearing Chris says, no, there isn't one. Sorry, that's just the way it is. So that might be the resolution. And we say, no, this is the way it is. We understand there is some subjectivity aspect, but we believe there will always be one. And that's how we, you know, it's going to be up to the TSE. Is that how we? So I think, Neethaar, no, just, you know, if that is the way you all decide that we need its objective, we understand. But I think it just doesn't give us anywhere to work towards, you know, and I think, you know, for a project to be successful and to, you know, we want goals and we'd like to, you know, work towards, you know, what's important to the TSE. We'd like to, you know, grow our diversity in that site and having direction on where we should head. And if it's maintainers versus contributors versus, you know, number of organizations, that's fine. But I think just a direction is important to us, but you all know that. We're just wanting to, you know, make sure that that was clear from our side. Right, thank you. But that's what I was trying to convey. And, you know, I'll be honest. I mean, this is the kind of stuff when, you know, my manager used to give me a goal. I would say, how are you going to major, how do I major success? That seems to be a reasonable ask. But so anyone, anything more on this? Just on, what are you, what's this open for? Well, so the diversity, again, I mean the status quo is what it is. We have a definition that, you know, these people wondering what exactly they have to do to meet that criteria. So that's the question is, is there a way to improve that? The other issues that we haven't, yeah, please. So even if it is subjective, even if it is still the TSE, that should be documented explicitly that it's a subjective decision of the TSE, and that's fine. But another thing we would like is, you know, we come up and say, you know, I think we're diverse and you say no, to give the reason rather than what we already told you, well, what did you tell us? Cause maybe we're not talking in the same language for chance, you know, maybe we need to come to an agreement as to what that language really means. Right, so this is why I raised the issue in the TSE. And so now I hope we can capture the resolution one way or another and that will answer that question. So in the last five minutes or so we have, I want to go back to this, the forego active state requirements for the first major release. What about that? Because we have several projects facing this situation and we have some precedent, although I think they were mostly accidental. I can't remember which one I feel like at some point we say there can be an exception to the rule, but I can't remember if we, I thought it was zero, I was told last week it wasn't. So I don't know when that would have been, but is that something we want to open up again? Sorry, an exception to what? Oh, to the criteria that you have to be in active status to the first major release. So I think when the active, when we first talked about first major release, it was discussed at that point that we didn't feel like you need it to be active to be first major release. And then in whatever that decision was that we made a month or so ago, I feel like that line got slipped in there. I don't know that we ever really discussed whether or not we want active state as a requirement for first major release. But yet it was part of the six or so bullet points that we made surrounding whatever it was that we made. I don't even remember what the decision was in total. It was criteria for first major release. Criteria for first major release. So we changed it from what it originally was to include active state. Yeah, I think that was intentional for my recollection. So I'll go back to my, I reached my line that I said on the other one, which is why I think that they're all interrelated. We don't have releases. Can anybody explain to me what a release is here? Other than looking at a tag and some people publish some doctor images. We don't actually have releases. We don't have anything that is called a hyperledger release. Yes. We don't. Okay, where do I go find it? In this context, it means if nothing else the resources that go towards the marketing and the security audits. But there's still no release. Again, there's still no actual release. This is the point, right? So I think then there's also what do people think? What do we read? Okay, go read Apache. I stated this. An Apache, an official software, an official Apache software foundation release artifact is a zip file, an archive file of the source code. And that archive file must contain everything required, well, must build, must build. You can download that source archive and with the tools that's in there. Alongside that, it also has a signature file of the maintainers signed off. And it goes into, you know, whatever, blah, blah, blah, Apache distribution. They actually allow, and there's a sign off on, you know, if you're gonna actually cut a release, they define a process for cutting a release that, you know, you have to have the TMC or whatever for each project, you know, votes, and you have to have at least three plus one. But that part doesn't necessarily matter. That's really just up to each project deciding that the code is ready for a release. And they have a second thing for actually doing releases for incubators. But incubators are allowed to do releases as long as they do the stuff. But for example, they won't go under the distribution slash thing, they would go under distribution incubator or incubator slash distribution release. So here's my point, right? Maybe the question to ask people is, what do they actually think they're getting by active and whatever status? And if what they're going to represent with that is if somebody wants to come in and say, this is officially hyperledger certified, it follows all hyperledger processes, whatever it's been indemnified or whatever, that's a whole different statement than stating a fact of we believe that this code is actually at a one over release version. And from this time on, you know, we're ready to, you know, follow Sember going forward. Those are two different statements because nothing should stop and that's the same question I would ask them like, you know what, that's what we asked them on what would they think active status means for them, right? All right, anybody else? Any reactions to what Gary is saying? I mean, you know, to be honest, I hear what you're saying, but I think when you say, well, we keep hammering, we don't have releases, we don't have releases. They don't have the same form as the zip files that are signed and digitally signed and all that. We don't have a release, Arno, we don't. Hold on, hold them tight, I don't care. I'm going to go off fighting on that one. And then if we don't, if we don't agree that, then nothing else we actually do actually matters. No, but that's not the point. I think Dan was right. In terms of hyperledger, the key aspect there is how much noise we make about, you know, when there's a new version that comes up that is tagged, if you call it that way, if you want to call it that way. And, you know, we have had security audits and PR around those so-called first major releases. And so I think that was a big part of why we said we should not only do that for a project that is inactive status because we shouldn't, I mean, there's a real cost associated with that. Right, but again, that's just saying a major release. Again, so what you're saying is you will only do, you could translate that to saying there are, we will, you know, hyperledger will provide marketing for major releases of active projects. Yes, that's indeed maybe a way to work around the situations we're in. All right, so we're almost out of time. I'd like to hear from other people, otherwise I'm going to close the call now and you can all chew on that for next week. And again, I encourage you to use the wiki to continue the discussion on those different points. And if you have completely different proposals, feel free to raise, to make them. Dano did raise his hand. So one thing I'd like to, one thing that is kind of at odds is the whole requirement of going under Semver and having to get approval for major releases. One of the requirements for Semver is if you break a certain level of backward compatibility, you must increase the major version release. So if for some reason a project needs to break a backwards version number, that means they need to go to the TSC, they need to have a full marketing release. So I think to echo Dan Middleton's idea, I think there should be a distinction between a major release and a promoted release. You may be required to do a major release because of Semver, but that doesn't mean that necessarily needs to be promoted. That's a very good point. I was going to say something similar to that. So thank you for saying this. Maybe we are using the wrong term and really associating all of this to this notion of major release. This is just because this is how it happened initially and maybe this has put us on the wrong track and we need to change that. I like the suggestions of promoted release or something like this. And we can free it from whether it's a major release or not, and whether it's from an active project or not. And that might help a lot. So that's an interesting thought. Okay, so we're out of time. So I'm going to close the call on this. I think we have made some progress anyway. So thank you all for joining. And please do use the wiki to try and make progress in the meantime, or do mailing this if you prefer. Okay, thank you all. Talk to you next week. Bye.