 Hey, good morning, Tracy. Hi, Sean. Tracy, we have three folks who said they're not going to make it today, so the total TSC count will be whatever shows up out of 11. Okay. Angelo Arun and Grace have said they can't make it. Yep. Thanks. All right, welcome everyone to the May 12th hyperledger technical steering committee call. As you are probably all aware, two things that we must divide by the first one is the antitrust policy notice that is currently being displayed on the screen. And the second is the code of conduct, which is linked in our agenda. So for our agenda today, we have our standard announcement. The hyperledger that weekly developer newsletter goes out each Friday. If you have something that you would like to reach all of the different hyperledger developers, please. Consider leaving a comment on the link that is linked in the agenda on that wiki page. And other announcements that anybody would like to make. So no announcements. So, currently reports, we had two quarterly reports come in. Actually, there's three quarterly reports that came in, but the next, the Aroha ones not due to next week. So we won't look at it until next week. The Aries in Indie reports came in. I did not see anything specific coming up on those particular project reports, although I do see that there's still some empty check marks that people haven't had a chance to review them yet so I think we'll just kind of take the opportunity to ask during this call if there's any questions or comments that anybody like to make regarding the Aries or Indie report. I've seen no hands and nobody come off mute. I take that as a no. So, please, if you haven't had a chance to review those yet please take the opportunity to do that. As I mentioned, the Aroha one has come in already for us to take a look at. Thank you to the Aroha team for getting that in and we will take a look at that next week when everybody has had an opportunity to take a look at that. We have the Bevel report that's also due next week and the other two reports that are listed here we're going to actually be talking about below so we will get to those discussions here shortly. Any questions at this point about the quarterly reports? Okay, great. The first item that we have is a couple of decisions. The first one is the default maintainer and activity policy that Dano updated for us based on our discussion last week. I have seen that there are six yeses. Marks plus Dano's is seven and I think, unless you also commented, which makes that eight approvals in the actual PR. Dano, I see you came off mute. Yeah, one thing that I haven't put in that became an after open the vote was a request to clarify who sends the PR to move people to America's status. And I want to change that to say it's the TSC or whoever the TSC chair designates. I think I mentioned that in the chat. Do you want that as a separate PR or can we roll that in with this one with a voice vote to approve that clarification? I think I'm fine with rolling it in. I don't have any problems with that. Since I think we're going to do a voice vote here anyway. Anybody have any objections to Dano making that change? Actually, the verbs I'm going to put in are any TSC member or hyper-legislative staff may file the pull request. Any objections to that particular change going in other than what is already there and voted on? No, please let's not have another PR just for that. Good, good. Alright, so Dano, we'll expect you to make that change. Do we feel like we need a formal vote here or do we feel like we've got the majority of people who have voted? Maybe we haven't. I guess what did I count? Eight, right? I don't count. Yeah, I think it's eight. So that is obviously above majority. So I'm going to assume unless anybody has any objections to that, we will go ahead and allow Dano to make that change and work just in. I have a question. So that as to, I mean, just for my knowledge as to what is the timeframe that is considered inactive before you remove the maintainer, like write permissions for the maintainer? So it's three months. It's six months. Six months. No kid hub activity. That's written into the policy. Okay. Before there was no policy there was just prodding of the projects to do it. Right. Six months. Okay. That's all I was wanting to thank you. Okay. Any, just last call any objections to Dano merging us in? All right, Dano, you have to go ahead to make that change and emerging in. Next item is also a decision to move hyperledger borough to an end of life state. So, as you may recall back at the beginning of the year we had a discussion with Silas and Casey from Monax about hyperledger borough. At that point they wanted to move it to a dormant state since hyperledger borough came up as meeting a project report you. I did reach out to Casey and Silas about this and asked them if they planned on coming back to contribute to this or not. And they did say that they were not planning on supporting borough going forward. So, as you can see, PR has been created issue was created for us to discuss. And as of this morning I saw that both Sean and well Sean approved it and Silas merged this pull request to archive borough. But I did want to have this kind of formal discussion here and formal decision that we will move hyperledger borough to end of life state. Any discussion that we should have before we move towards a vote. I read in the Aroha report that came in late last night when I couldn't sleep. That they were one of their major points was they got rocks DB working with borough. So my question is, are you know what projects depend on borough. And what are their plans going forward I mean since since all the main tanners approved the archiving and shutting down the project. I don't think there's any reasons and not move it well, but I think it's something we need to see how the other projects are going to deal with it. Yeah, thanks Tracy in the same vein. I vaguely remember the borough team were doing work with the salt tooth lake team. And the new transaction family with solidities. Don't know if we checked with the salt tooth lake team about this if there's any cross project dependencies. Yeah, it's an honor. Yeah, I mean it's very much in the same line again because so I think I reported earlier this year that I attended a call from the Aroha team and they were not aware at the time we had just moved borough to dormant status and they were talking about how they were using borough and I told them I said oh by the way are you aware. And so, at least you know they've been warned that there was a situation that they needed to worry about, but I agree with that we need to figure out. And I guess Jim I mean the same for so too, if there are dependencies like this. I imagine they need to be aware that this is now being archived. I agree we shouldn't stop that for that matter because if there's nobody to maintain it anyway. Particularly speaking it means that each and of, you know, of these projects has to make a decision to either take over whatever they use from the borough project and make it part of their project, or stop using it right. So I can, I can come up on the sawtooth one, because I do recall that when this initially happened and I think you brought the Aroha one up in conversation on the TSC call that we had reached out to sawtooth to let them also know that they were, that the project had moved to a dormant state right and I can't find it currently in my chat but I do recall them responding back and saying that's okay. We actually had forked what we needed into sawtooth and we've actually deprecated that anyway. So that's what I recall from the sawtooth side of the house. If I can find that at some point I will put the link to that in our chat but I, as far as the Aroha, do we have anybody on the Aroha project that is here today. Yeah, so I talked that did exactly what I didn't want to do, so I will remember that. So I am on telegram with Aroha, and I had a conversation with Sarah and I don't remember in Sawtooth's name. And this is what they had to say. So, they're aware. Okay. I appreciate that update. Right. Okay, any other discussion or concerns then at this point. Do we have a motion to end of life. I believe to grow. Motion. Yes, Peter. Do we have a second. I can see. Which is something quickly to add to the motion. We should probably thank the bro maintainers for all their effort in the community of a bro is a pretty significant project for us in terms of helping us stay close to the Ethereum community for quite a long time so you know I don't know if that's something we can add to the resolution. But it seems appropriate. Definitely a great day then I think there was some really great collaboration when I actually first joined the Linux Foundation as a hyperledger community architect and with the the borough community and saw tooth and then further on with the fabric community and kind of the EVM to hyperledger as a whole and then to these projects individually so I think there was a lot of good, good stuff that came out of hyperledger borough so I appreciate you bringing that up Nathan. All right so I think we have a motion and a second. Is there. I actually write normally that you run a vote you just want us to anybody opposed anybody. Yeah, and I will try to do it in the right order. Opposed the motion before the technical steering committee to move borough to end of life status. Does anyone abstain from voting on this. All in favor say aye. Okay, I'm not going to count but by police vote that the motion passes. All right, thanks for that. All right, so the next item of discussion is an email that to us regarding the future state of hyperledger explore. I would like to hand the floor over to you to take the PC through that discussion and what it is that you're asking. Sure, glad to do that. As you know, DCC has been the proponent and maintainer of hyperledger explore for the longest time and we were very very active for a few years and then within our organization things moved around so we had fewer contributors from inside but we did keep on having more contributors and try to increase our contributor levels, you know, get more people involved and get quite a few of those up until last year with David's help. We did a couple more where we showcased Explorer and restart to the community for more maintainer support and also as you all know that we had applied to get out of incubation several twice. In the past few years, the only thing that we missed out on was the number of contributors we were that was the only missing factor everything else was good. Definitely a lot of folks are using Explorer looking at the number of downloads on the Docker hub and the number of stars on the actual GitHub. Definitely, there's a lot of folks who are using it so definitely useful for folks, but unfortunately, the only two remaining maintainers from DCC and Fujitsu are pulled with other responsibility so we are looking for other maintainers to take on hyperledger explore to the next stage so definitely do not want it to die knowing that so many folks are using it. So, the question I raised to David Boswell was like how what can we do and he put me in touch with IBM's broad. And it looks like there is a fabric console and hyperledger lab so we had a few chats with him. And there were some synergies here that that takes Explorer to one level above where you look at the side, where it's a read only repository, you're looking at what's going on in the blockchain you slice and dice data using Explorer. At the same time from the administrative side, you could do things with Explorer that fabric console offers so those two together would make a wonderful product that would definitely be welcomed by the community but after a few talks, it looks like that is not going to happen. So from the IBM side we were all ready to go with it. So, now we are back to square one trying to find out how do we get more maintainers so several things come to my mind. One is like, how do we appeal to the community like we have done meetups we have asked for more contributors. But I'm not sure the community knows we're looking actively for actual maintainers. If community knows about it maybe someone would come forward. And folks I reached out to who had expressed interest is Arun. And he's from the hyperledger chapter in India, and he is talking to his, I guess, management to find out if that is doable. And while I'm waiting on that I had also reached out via this email and Peter approached me also and he had a wonderful suggestion that maybe some useful parts could be absorbed in cactus. Cactus looks like is the next level up of Explorer which is blockchain agnostic and that is, that was also originally the aim of Explorer hyperledge Explorer but we started out with fabric. And so I think something could be done there that's option number two. So, I leave it open to everybody to help us decide what should we do next as far as Explorer goes. And if, if everybody agrees that yes, we can't find maintainers actually, you know, we've tried, we've reached out to the community, and then it could possibly be absorbed in cactus, or, you know, it could just be archived and no more further than Explorer, but definitely on DTCZ side, we don't have any more folks that we could, you know, lack of resources as wanting us to pull out of it. That's the song. Yeah. Thanks, thanks for that. I think that was a really good explanation of the history of trying to get maintainers and kind of where the projects at right now. Unless you raised your head. Yeah, so, yeah, thank you. So, I run in myself, I think, so, even today also discuss about the Explorer feature and kind of talk to the community, even though there's a daily incorporation there in the weekly call, and I asked them like if they can take interest or someone can take a responsibility to become a maintainer, there is opportunity in the high pressure Explorer. So, that even we are trying as a community level, and I think in India, a couple of organizations keep joining our regular weekly meetings. So, even I think Arun also talked to Vinita and I think we plan some kind of bit ups to collaborate within operation console and Explorer. And I think happy to help for that perspective. Yeah, but that is, I'm not sure if you're aware of the latest development in that respect is IBM has pulled out of that. Okay, yeah. So, just know for the talks of combining Explorer and console. Yeah, I think that would be a wonderful product. So, but, but the next step up, in my opinion is cactus, you know, blockchain, plastic Explorer is the most, most use. I think we are using the fabric. They are definitely using exploring their ecosystem. Right. So I do know is widely used, but what I do not know is, is the community aware that there is a danger of this getting. Becoming end of life and is there something that they should have been given a chance to do something about and that's the part I don't know how to go to the next step on that and that also kind of you know, aligns with that policy that we were talking about earlier is that the maintainer has not been active for the past six months. You know, an activity so it would be removed from right permission so if you have no maintenance left then what is the next step what do you what do you do with that project like. Is there a process in place like okay if the maintainer levels falls below three, there is, we need to do something. Yeah. Well, and this brings up a good point is, once you've been completely out of maintainers it's hard to do a yard sale and offer up code. It's hard to maintainer to help on board anyone new. And that raised the other question about the options available. A lot of them are kind of speculative meaning, and we're kind of offering it up and say this could happen. Of all those options is there any of them where there's a name associated with it where someone said, this seems interesting to me or I might put the work in. Otherwise, I'm just not sure if we can count on it actually happening. I just wanted to add I mean, my colleague David in your two is on the development team, you know couldn't make it today but he actually briefed me a little bit before the call. And I just wanted to add a little bit to what I said about the IDM team and the interest, and it's true that you know what was said is absolutely accurate and what I would add is the reason why IDM has kind of pulled out of this is actually really merely resource issue really, and they were interested in the possibilities that this kind of convergence would bring to the console but in the end, they looked at the amount of code and they decided they couldn't just take responsibility for that code. Maybe, you know, I think read the comments from. I think you know Peter said well maybe we could take part of it that would be useful to us we don't want to take everything over, and maybe something like this would also be possible with the operation console. You know, the bottom line is the reason primarily has been, well this is more code than we can possibly take over, and in the end they decided they wasn't to go. So that's probably the reason for the pull out. And that's pretty much primarily the reason we are also looking for. I understand. All right, yeah, and I Peter I know you're on the call I think, you know, important just to note for those might not know, right. Hyperledger Cactus is about interoperability between different blockchain platforms and Explorer is about being able to look at your blockchain network to ensure that it's running smoothly and you know, kind of the number of blocks and those sorts of things. So, I, I mean, when I hear like this comment about, you know, pulling it into cactus I wonder exactly what that means because they seem to be focused on two different things and so Peter, I hate to put you on spot. I know it's early there, early for me as well. But any, any comments to add to your, your email that you sent out to the list in response to the meeting. No problem for me. I just, I just want to emphasize the part about picking out the most useful components for the same reason with Arnold said, and he just said about the code base being large. I would say the parts that we could reuse or start maintaining they would be the ones that are the most important and then the ones that we already have something in our issue tracker for which is to have this functionality to observe to be able to absorb the state of blockchain. And the reason by I, and a few other people in one of our maintainers beans for that, it would be a good idea to have something like this being cactus was because of the theme of exploring the cactus both being types of projects that are met in the sense that they need to support all other types of pleasures for whatever it is that they're due, whatever it is that they do. And that was that's how it started. And I know that's not strictly interrupt, but at the same time it's something that's adjacent just on account of this theme. And then I want to doubly underline that they could not be definitely could not take over the entire code base and would have to be trimmed down to very specific parts. And another thing to underline is that I could only make any sort of recommendations on what those parts would be if we could talk to people who are running it in production. And then we will make the pitch to them saying, what if we pick these components out. And then we would start maintaining those as cactus or would you then be willing to come back and contribute or maybe join us maintaining that smaller part. And then we would go to to run this little survey where the exist that I would test out the willingness of the existing community who uses it to see if they are also willing to buy into my idea the same way that I'd be looking to. There's a version of events where suddenly a lot of people have their hands up saying, oh yeah, I mean I looked at it earlier it's huge and I didn't deal with it but now that you wrote this idea forward that the small parts that they actually use could be maintained by me now I put my hand up to actually be a maintainer, or at least to contribute. So my entire proposal hinges big time on the outcome of that survey. If, if we go out to the community, and they still crickets even after the reduced set of components, then my answer would be informed by that as well. Because if there's a lot of users but then even with the reduced set of components, no one is willing to just stand up and help out with it, then that's, that's something to think about for us as well. That makes perfect sense to me, I think I like the idea of having a survey put out to the larger community, you know, for Explorer Code to see you guys use it, you know, how would you like to be, you know, just get a feel for maintainers for this, you know, first find out what is the interest. The problem is it's a utility, right, a tool is always harder to get that number of maintainers for but we can still try. So I think we should definitely do that survey. And at the end of that survey, you know, it looks like there are a few people and then that helps you determine, Peter, if any parts of it should be absorbed into cactus and if there aren't any then that next logical step would be to just, you know, archive. The project, but definitely give the community a chance. I like the idea too, because I feel like we do reach out to them, we are always, you know, doing meetups and, you know, asking for contributors but we've never really asked for maintainers as such. So not sure if folks know that we are looking for containers. So that survey would definitely help. So, so I have some commentary here I guess to add to this conversation so what I've heard so far is that there are certain projects and or labs that might be interested in small pieces of Hyperledger Explorer to bring them in. There has been a concerted effort in the past to get additional contributors to come into Hyperledger Explorer. The contributors haven't shown up, which means then you can't turn them into maintainers. I, I feel like if we continue down this path of surveying and trying to get somebody interested, we're going to be back here in six months to a year. With no further progress having been made. And it's, it's kind of a concern, right, because I see that there are people who are trying to contribute to Explorer, where I actually redirected somebody yesterday from the fabric code contributors to the Explorer in Discord. And I guess I'm just very concerned that, you know, we don't have people right now who are willing to even review those PRs and do anything with the project. And so, you know, as I look at this, my, my thought is, do we deprecate this at this point, which would give the notification to people that if they are interested in becoming maintainers that this would be the option. But of course deprecation means that you have somebody who's willing to support it for another six months. Which it sounds like we don't have anybody who's willing to support it for another six months. Or do we just say, you know, this is something that we think is, we've done the best that we can, and it is now time to call it and say let's archive this. Any, any reactions to that from the USC. So if some support is needed. Yeah, so if some support is needed for a few more months I can I can definitely, you know, do something about it from our side to see that would be just be maintenance mode like it has been for the past like nine months I think the last release that was pushed out was last August and they have been no new releases. It's totally been, you know, looking at the PRs and, and, you know, doing something about it to put it to one person from Fujitsu and one person from the DTCC. I could get them to be a, you know, be available the next few months for supportive that is, but that's, that's about it. Yeah, there won't be any new development. Right, understood, understood, which I mean deprecated state is the intention to say that in six months we'll move this to an end of life state. But we are willing to maintain it for another six months in case people have anything that they want to come in or participate in so that's, that's kind of the reason that I was thinking that. Okay, sure. That's good to know. Thank you. Thank you. And Peter. The other thing we could do is, and the fly fit now and do the survey at the same time. I think it's, it's a, it might actually help the survey. That's the point I was going to make earlier, which is that, you know, we, we say, yep, this is nine to five. We also put it right there that huge letters that there's a survey very are looking to resurrect parts of it, and that if you are serious about helping out with that and contact us. And that would give it eight, because, you know, if you ask people a year ago, please come contribute. A lot of them may have thought, well, I'm using it and it's kind of important, but I'll just let someone else contribute because I'm busy. And then everyone's thinking that, you know, the, there's a name for that problem that everyone thinks that someone else will do something. So, but that if it's ended for life, and you're actually using it, it's important to you for whatever reason, to the point that you're willing to help. You're going to think about it much more seriously now that, you know, the, the message is up there saying this is done. So I'm not saying that they should definitely do this. I'm just saying, in my opinion, this is also a credible option to think about where we just do the end of life. But literally on the same part of the read me in the same paragraph, we say, please leave a comment in this issue that we open, which is a survey where you could explain what you're using this for how important is it to you. And would you be able to contribute if we put some parts out of it somewhere else, and which parts those would be, which is very valuable data for us in the future, if anything happens. Thanks, Peter. So I don't know if I would go as far as having a survey per se, but I think Peter is touching an interesting point, which is, when we archive projects, it would be good if there was a way we could communicate and maybe this is, like in the description, I don't know what we have now, but there should be something that says, hey, if you know this project was archive but if you have an interest, you know, in contributing resurrecting this project, feel free to contact the TSE or something along those lines, so that we can communicate to people that that's always a possibility because if I'm an external party, I may not even think that this is a possibility, which I think it is. I mean, tell me if I'm wrong but I don't think anybody would be opposed if, you know, if, like the example of Explorer if we decide okay sorry, there's just not resources into this, we move it aside. If it's six months a year from now, somebody shows up and say, hey, I'm really interested in this, I will take it over. I don't think we would say no. Yeah, completely agree. I don't know. I think, you know, this could be something that we do as we move these to archive is also add a note at the top of the review, right, that basically says this project has been archived. If you're interested in resurrecting this, please contact the Hyperledger TSE at whatever TSE. Yeah, exactly. I think I think that makes a lot of sense. Right. Same as like we can do that right now with the the borough project, although it has been archived I think already so it might be a bit difficult to make that change. It's a lot of difficult it is to make changes on so that's archive. But yeah, I do I do think having some sort of note is is useful. Any other comments. It's just mechanical. So, if, if someone has texts they want to add to the borough read me, or this read me. You know, I can archive it, slip in the change and rearchive it. It's not that big of a deal. Okay, they try. I am happy to provide some, some text, and then we can get that into the borough one, and maybe any other ones that we've organized since recently. What about this security stuff on blockchain explorer of some things that are critical and high priority that have been created as far as issues was there commentary you wanted to add around that. Right. The commentary is based on the high number of the 25 critical or high severity issues. I don't think anyone should be using it as is. If you're rolling out explorer somewhere. There are a lot of issues in the code. The other thing I wanted to point out is, we already have pull requests that have been opened since September of 2021. And it, you know, I think the next step is end of life. And that will just acknowledge the situation that we're in, which is there are a bunch of security problems. No one is merging essentially pull requests are are not being merged. And if we, if someone shows up and wants to take it over, then we applaud them and, you know, make it happen. So I just, you know, in his current state with all the security alerts, I think another, whatever, three to six months of not end of life is not a good signal to send. I'm sorry. Other thoughts or comments. So if Anita preference or thoughts on the two kind of suggestions that have been out there around deprecated slash end of life based on the conversation later. Either one is fine whatever the steering committee seems is the next logical step is fine with me. So I've heard end of life from a few folks. I think I haven't heard from everybody though is there, do we have any sort of consensus at this point. If you put a motion before the TFC to end of life, and then people vote against it. Then we know. And I asked, right. What are the priorities of this public sort of, but no. They, they're public the TSC members are in a special permission group so you have the ability to see those. They are private to the maintainers. The PRs that get created are, you know, take a look here. These PRs just say that it has a vulnerability. But they don't say what it is. But there, there's nothing stopping anyone. If you fork this to your account and turn on dependent bot, you will see all this. So is it public, not directly on this on this page but So, you know, you can just cover it very easily. You know, if it's public, right, typically dependent bodies just say okay merge. Sure, but this is like, perhaps. What seven of these, and there are 42 security issues so for whatever reason. Like these ones that are these two that are on high, it couldn't generate the. Click here it says it cannot update to a non vulnerable version because of this dependency conflict. Okay, so there's an issue that requires some work. Yeah, there's the ones that it can auto generate do do generally need, you know, some different some small dependency updated. And then you need to retest everything to make sure the things still work so it's not quite as mechanical. And so let me ask you, I mean, when you said you could, you could possibly maintain for another six months but without doing further development. Does that include addressing this kind of issues or not. Yes, yeah, we could take care of that. Because you know that seems like something that should be pretty high on the list if we wanted to. Otherwise, we, they are in my opinion if we don't do at least this kind of stuff. There is no other choice than putting aside with the big label saying, watch out. And maybe we don't get into the details but we would have to say, you know, there are no issues. Don't use this in production or something. But maybe we want to archive anyway but it would just make it more obvious that has to be less I was trying to get up. I think maybe we should still have a, you know, a warning. So that once it's archived people don't say oh but I can still use it. If we know there are issues with it. So this is the warning. At the top of hyper ledger composer that Simon put in. So, I think something along these lines would be appropriate. Okay. So, back to the question of, do we have any sort of motion that anybody would like to make on this as far as what the future direction should be. Even that is very easy as right this reminded us mechanically it's very simple right archiving repo or vice versa I think we should move it to end of life or Kaiser and and kind of see if anybody you know reacts to it, because I agree with what Peter was saying earlier. People tend to take the easy way out right. Maybe they do use it. Maybe they want to keep it. They're like well as long as somebody else does the work for me I'm just going to keep it a low profile. In a way, you know, you've we've been trying to get people to step in, they haven't. If we just, you know, it will force the issue. It's like well either now you step up and you, you know, we can earn archive it, and you can take over, or it is archive, don't use it anymore, or use it at your own peril. It's a fine favor. Okay. So let's, let's see if we can then have a vote to end of life for today. Does anyone with the with the proper text to say, you know, if people are interested to take it over, we can definitely reopen it. I agree. Peter. I was just going to say the same thing I'll just just wanted to make sure that that is part of the motion. So the can I get a motion to end of life hyperledger explore with text in the read me about the ability to on archive if people are interested in taking on the internship. I'll move. Thanks. I have a second. Sorry. Peter. Thanks, Dan. All right. So, right. I think a roll call vote would be good given that we didn't hear from everybody. Okay. On the motion before the TSC Jim, how do you vote. I vote yes. Camelash. Yes. Nathan. Yes. Peter. Yes. Tracy. Troy. Yes. No. Yes. Artem. Yes. Bobby. Yes. Daniel. Okay. So the motion passes. There are four people on the TSC who are not here. So. The passes, whatever. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Roy. And we need to thank you to yourself and see the rest of the maintainers from DTCC and Fujitsu have put so much effort into hyperledger explore over the years. As, as we, and if we hear from anybody who would like to take on the internship of this, we will definitely let you know. Thank you for all of your support. All right. So with that, we are 10 minutes left. I'm going to. For the project families. Task force. What I'm going to do is set up a off cycle meeting since we seem to have in the last few TSC meetings not been able to get to the task forces. But meeting for that, I think the plan is not for this upcoming Tuesday, but for the following Tuesday. To put something on the calendar. So if you're interested in joining that, please check out the chat on project families and I will ensure that the information is linked there in that chat. I will not be able to attend the TSC Dano is going to run the TSC meeting for us. And ensure that things continue forward. I know that there's a discussion that a room wants to have on the security task force next week. If there's anything else, definitely let us know and we'll make sure to get that added to the agenda. On the subject of off call task force calls Tuesday, there's one for the project gaps task force we haven't had an on cycle call. But I think it'll be a good opportunity to synthesize the discovery we did in the TSC meeting and in the last off cycle call. So when we do come back before the TSC which probably won't be next week if the discussion is going to go as long as expected for the week after we'll be able to get some concrete recommendations. So that's as people interested in the project gaps to call in Tuesday at the same time as this Thursday call is. Yeah, thanks Dano. So for the next two Tuesdays you'll have some meetings at the same time to join for the task forces that we have going on. So is before I close the meeting anything else that anybody would like to add to today's meeting. All right. So since there's nothing, thanks all for attending. And we will, well, then I will talk to you I guess next week. Yeah, thank you. All right. Thanks everybody. Thank you.