 Yeah, all right. I have started the recording and we can get going Okay Good morning. Good evening. Good afternoon everyone We just flashed by our weekly reminder on the any trust guidelines so on today's agenda, oh My god, we're creating our mailing list that should be fun Hopefully that will work smoothly Do you know when that's going to happen Todd is that just going to be No change to the actual URLs for the mailing list So slight change it will still be list hyper ledger org We're moving everything over to groups.io For Linux Foundation, all the projects are moving over. They've already moved quite a few of the projects that we host Okay, so simplified the process and smoothed a lot of that stuff out This is kind of the pre FYI for that. We'd be looking at doing this in about two weeks. Oh So at that point we'll give just further details on the mechanics This will provide a lot better functionality and ease of managing subscriptions and all of that So it's a really really solid Think towards Somebody was asking me the other day about the the sawtooth mail list was originally set up as STL when it was sawtooth lake I wonder if this might be a good time to migrate that name to sawtooth and whether we could have the the old Name redirect to to a new name at the same time Yeah, I believe that should be fine Let me just confirm on that but we would also be looking at just kind of doing a quick audit If there's any other mailing lists that may not make sense to have any more that haven't been used, you know in two plus years, so I'll take a note on that and See if we can make that happen. Also just Well, I guess we could take this offline, but maybe we could also have shorter Instead of hyper ledger dash Everything since it is at hyper ledger, you know list of hyper ledger org. Yep. You just you know fabric sawtooth borough And we could alias so that they both work for a period Just a thought anyway First planning And then we have Dave Huesby who's been put off for now like three or four weeks in a row So he'll be first up after the reminder of the hackfest planning. Yay the bug bounty We have to finish up the template for standardizing and launching new working groups And so we'll pick up where we left off in that discussion last week. Oh We have a request for hyper ledger composer to go to 1.0 But I don't think anybody's on yet has anybody joined to To Represent composer. I'm trying to find somebody Yeah, if we do find somebody then we'll have that if we don't and we'll do that next week, but I would Encourage people to review the request if they haven't already done so And again, that's going to you know be You know guided given the the agreement we had last week on Getting a review for 1.0 Before you're active and so forth Quarterly project updates. Pardon me I will do mine for fabric this week and next week is Dan for sawtooth or maybe somebody else, but Love to throw that on somebody else. I tried that Okay Quarterly working group updates we have Performance of scale and I did see mark on so I think we're good to go for that right mark Yes, should be awesome. So any other topics for the agenda? Okay, Todd you want to kick it off with hackfest planning sure thing and just really quickly we are at quorum now So on the hackfest side again, the Amsterdam information is there and in the agenda that went out The other topic was the fall hackfest We put out two potential dates to piggyback on various conferences one in August piggybacking on open source summit North America and Vancouver The other being on the back end of the hyper ledger member summit Quite a few people responded to this it does seem like the preference is to tack this on to hyper ledger member summit So that would put this October 3rd and 4th in Montreal And it seemed like a lot of the the key players that come to our hackfest Are interested in that date and then tacking that on to an event where we have, you know, 230 plus member companies Likely to be there probably a good way to get some engagement. So Call for any questions concerns or otherwise we can likely just move forward with that so we're gonna go with the October one That's what it looks like from the doodle poll. I just wanted to check with this group one final time. However, yeah, I That works for me Cool. Any any concerns from anyone? Yeah Hearing none sounds like October after the member summit or before is is it excellent? Sounds good. Thank you Dave on to you Dave you're up. Yes No, no, no, no, I have to put you next week You're killing me All right, so I'll make this really brief Um, I know that it's not widely known because it's been public Or sorry, it's been private up until now the TSC themselves are aware of this, but We have been running a private bug bounty through the hacker one platform for the last six months Currently it's just the fabric project but we're now that sawtooth is 1.0 and and You know quote-unquote production ready. We're gonna move to have it included in the bug bounty as well I Wanted to come to the TSC to get approval to take our bug bounty public we Ran a private bug bounty and got some traffic, but I think it will serve us better to open it up to a broader audience Mostly because this Bitcoin technology or Bitcoin blockchain technology Shame on me blockchain technology is still very new to most people and so we were getting a pretty limited reach inside of hacker ones list of Security analysts and so I think the best way for us to get more eyeballs on the code trying to poke holes in it would be to to Open it up to the public. I think the proposed well known The proposed plan is that Marta and I would announce That we're opening it up to the public during our RSA talk in a week or so and we would still continue to use the hacker one platform for receiving reports and handling them confidentially and Disclosing them and handling the payouts of the bounties and I think the Will make a small adjustment to the bounty payouts downward just because there might be huge influx of Participants and it's to protect our existing bug bounty funds But we'll quickly ramp them up if we're not getting any interest. I'm not going to give any details on numbers We can talk about privately But yeah, I Any questions if you guys approve it, you know, I'd love to move forward with it. I was just curious. Have we Has anyone found any yet? I mean The answer to that is no. We've had some reports about hyper ledger web properties From lots of some lots of those. Yeah, but Nobody has really dug their teeth into the underlying blockchain code and so I was you know, we tried everything we Did a bunch of internal marketing to their Hacker group we tried doing like lowering the barrier to entry offering to do intro sessions with them and Just nothing. It was crickets. Yeah. Well, I mean, I think a lot of that is actually due to the fact that most of the hackers toolkits are really oriented towards Breaking into typical web-based applications. Yeah for sure. So I mean that's that's what they have in their tool belt and They don't have a whole lot around blockchain and GRPC and all the other stuff. So yeah, yeah Our security auditor that's been doing all our security audits had to spend time building a tool kit to try to penetrate those API and points Yeah, we have the same with What we do is a coal fire Okay All right, any direction any quick any further questions besides mark any objections hearing none Going once going twice sold. Yay Cool, this is important. This is a big step in our security Yep. Good. All right. Thank you. All right. Thanks, Dave Next up is to Bring back the discussion on the working group proposal Brian and Tracy do you want to pick up where we left off? Sure. So and looking at kind of the the main concerns that exist on the Process it seems like the the biggest concern that people have is really around Elections as a topic of Conversation so we had suggested in here that Elections would happen for an initial chair within the first three months and then every year after that so Opening it up for discussion on that topic over rocket check And and yeah, I I know it'd be simpler if the TSC just appointed heads I think an election can be done very quickly and is a great way to kind of get the the the working group to Make its first important decision as a working group and and bootstrap and and have a sense of ownership by the working group and and I think if there's ever a lack of either candidates or if the Outcome feels weird, you know the TSC can always You know do take take a corrective action of some sort But I think I think having the having an election is a good way for the working group to feel invested in In the in the process and in the outcomes and yes, it can be gamed and yes We should talk about, you know who can vote and that sort of thing But I had steady stayed in for the vast majority of you know how we view these working groups working where it's amongst people who Have met have known each other. I think with a few tweaks To the election process. We can keep it from being coming a overly politicized kind of thing And generally as I said in the last call, you know the working group chair is not just an honorific kind of title It's actually gonna be required to do stuff so It'll be you know, it'll be something people if somebody wants to compete to be the working group chair More power to them in a way. I mean, it's a it's not a it's not a free ride You know, what do people think? I mean, you know today, we've basically been using the TSC is the as the body that's choosing working group chairs What what's the What's the real threat or what's the real downside if working group election is gained? I mean, it's a working group, right? They're not making serious decisions about the direction of the project I mean potentially. Yeah, they definitely I mean, I think that You know, certainly, I mean if I look to you know, let's just take you know For a few examples, right the white paper working group an excellent job. They publish papers on behalf of the TSC and and the organization generally that's pretty important stuff the The architecture working group is also, you know Publishing documents that, you know, I think have a bit of relevance the performance and scaling working group is also on that same course. So yeah, they're I think working groups are equally as important as as projects. They're a little bit different though and that we need somebody to sort of catford and Now again from an industry perspective, you know, maybe that's a little bit different but Certainly, I mean, are we saying now that? You know, somebody could come along and and bump rom from chairing the architecture working group by gaming the system I don't like that. I don't think that's appropriate or fair at all All right, I see that perspective. Just plain devil's advocate. I was just wondering Yeah, I mean I guess I would also add to this that when we have a working group chair that disappears Or can't continue to engage the idea that the group feels empowered meaning they elected the chair and they can they feel like They can propose what will happen next. I think will help Keep those groups making steady progress Right, but I think that the membership changes, right, but I think that again We have the concept of what is the working group, right? And if the working group is just the people that are if the bar to be a member a voting member of the working group Is to subscribe to a mailing list that's too low It's just too low. I Think I agree with that. I mean, it's I Think there are definitely some working groups that have a risk of being politicized like the performance and scaling working group definitely comes to mind Yeah, so I'm I'm really uncomfortable with just mailing list It's the bar Brian I just One one suggested hack to that was you know people who are subscribers as of you know, like a month before the election That's not so hackable. I mean again It's a lot more subscribing to a mailing. This is not a bar. It is not there's no participation involved You know we we have We have a process whereby the chair of a working group is Basically tracking, you know, who's been an active contributor active participant in a working group and you know, we've asked them to track that so that for the annual elections We can add those names to the list of Active contributors to the technical work Well, this is actually part of the difficulty right because we don't have any way of tracking participation beyond the working group chair Right, but if they're maintaining that as I think certainly some of them certainly are Then we have a list in the wiki of who's a member if you will who's an active participant I can appreciate that that might be the list of people who can vote But if you're not an active participant, why are you getting a vote? This doesn't make any sense to me All of the meetings that were they were participating in are taking minutes all the working. Yeah, they're taking minutes with a list of attendees That are showing up for the working group that that's a substantially higher bar than Than just the mailing list, right? I totally agree with that Mike So you could make it put people who participate in the the the calls Yes Those who are going to be in the vote, you know, I mean again We're accumulating but the working group chairs are figuring out who's an active participant So that we can augment the commit totals and so forth to indicate which working group participants are eligible to vote in For the TSC Yeah, I was gonna ask does it I think it should be in that same set and I guess, you know Well, so so that would be that's that's a that's perhaps an easy way out rather than mailing list participants You could have the people who are showing up to the regularly scheduled calls. Yes Okay. Yeah, I agree with that. I Like that. I think that's the best we have so far I don't know I mean Yeah, so No, I was just saying showing up is An easy thing to write like I dial in and that's it So I I mean, I'm perfectly fine with it But I don't think it solves the problem that is attempting to be solved here Which is people subscribing to the mailing list But what you know, that's that's a possible concern that people should think about and I I also think That leaving it up to the hands of the the chair as to Selecting who has participated enough is very subjective as well. So I wouldn't suggest going that direction either So we've for the TSC elections, right? We've basically been saying the chair writes down Basically, we've been doing what the last thing Tracy said is the chair writes down the people that they viewed as active Participants, but people that feel like they've been active participants can You know, like send an email to the I think I forget who it was But they could send an email and say hey, you know, I was an active participant Please, you know add me so it's something like this work where if the chair wrote a list of names down and then people that Thought people that thought they were left off could basically email the TSC or email someone and say hey I got left off So before we drive further into who should vote I want to ask again Do we even need an election system at all? I mean, what problem are we trying to solve today? I mean the whole thing came about Okay, we need a bit more for Formal process for people to propose a new working group, which I think is fine But now we are getting into a whole process discussion which quite frankly I don't think has been a problem to date. We have several working groups that are in existence They all have chairs somehow they got there with the provol of the TSC But you know, I don't know that we need to get into this whole process of an election every year on top of it The goal for this wasn't to Make any changes to existing working groups. I have my I would imagine the existing ones would be grandfather They wanted to use the new process great The point here is there are a bunch of new groups that we'd like to propose the people have been coming to us to Ask to be created that our industry specific ones kind of modeled after the health care working group and I was concerned at least about burdening the TSC with having to Sort through names of people that didn't know or processes They weren't engaged in to to make a decision that could also be at risk of being politicized, right? And to try to drive amongst the working groups like to make their first meaningful decision amongst themselves And to decentralize a fair bit too because I worry the TSC is Very hands-on with each of these working groups that it'll feel overwhelmed There's still be reporting that still be in accountability from these working groups to the TSC It was just a desire to try to you know, keep the burden upon the TSC lightweight. So Yeah, I can appreciate that but to Arnaud's point we haven't had a problem to date right people You know that the process is generally for working groups has generally been somebody gets a be in there bonnet and thinks that you know, there's a need for driving a working group and That individual typically Gathers additional support for the idea brings it forward Makes a proposal they get to be chair and You know, we've had a couple of cases where That the chair sort of drifts away and and things start going fallow and and then we come back to the TSC and somebody says hey, I want to Take over the reins and it's it's worked out Yeah, that's very much what I feel as well and you know, quite frankly, I'm grateful to the people who are volunteering to be chair Yeah, absolutely. We really have a problem of people competing for the seats So I don't So I don't post to the whole election thing. I just feel like we're overshooting something All right, well, you know, we'd like to move forward with a proposal and start creating Getting some new proposals for working groups in and in front of the TSC. So yeah the consensus of the broad TSC and not just the two a few people speaking that They want to be able to to appoint and have the responsibility for The the chairs the working groups then I'd rather move forward on this than get hung up on it. So let's do that Yeah, and with that I had to making sure that we got all the right perspectives Are are there any participants on from the working groups that feel that There's some improvement that could be made on on how the the chair was uh selected That's an awkward question to come out and say that you hate the chair of the working group that you're participating in but As it isn't it more likely that the chair is kind of the sacrificial lamb that gets all the responsibility and you know None of the glory Yeah They should have badges, right? Yeah, you know, I kind of like I I agree with with mick there because you know, I participate in In architecture working groups since day one and I remember the first Community meeting in new jersey that ram approached me and say, you know, we need something like this and and we agreed and Ram been serving as the chair since then I haven't seen anyone volunteer to say, you know I will help ram to take over this for a while But you know, I have to say, you know kudo to him that been doing this for more than two years Um, and it's been working fine. They've been stepped in for christopher and Been doing a great job ever since yeah, I mean, I think you know, again, I think it it basically works brian Um Yeah, and I agree with that statement that it's been working fairly well I think that the election would actually be more likely to be perceived as a way out or a way of Taking turns being the sacrificial lamb Without elections, I think something that does happen is um Others in the group are happy to let the the other guy take a bullet for the team on a perpetual basis Uh, I guess I'm also responding to you know, when we launched the health care working group. We appointed um three chairs um who had volunteered to us to do it and There seemed to be a lot of pushback on that that list from people who said well, who are these people who got who appointed them boss? Uh, and you know and that that surprised us a bit too, but then we said, okay. Well, sure. Let's let's do an election there. Um, and uh, uh You know that that Maybe we over responded to um to to a few squeaky wheels, but but that was uh, and that wasn't the tsc That was that was um hyper ledger staff. So maybe that was our mistake in in being the ones to to set that up and appoint them Um, uh, rather than coming to the tsc Uh, but uh, I think the there's a there's the burden of politic politicization politicization um somewhere and if the tsc wants to bear that burden And it's worked fine so far. Uh, it hasn't been highly politicized yet. Um, uh, but uh, uh, I just worry about you know Decentralization I guess so all right I've said my piece we'll adjust this to be to to to hold off on any any election process for now And just make it appointed by the tsc. It'd just be nice to have some way of making sure that you know There's some check that the tsc Thinks about its responsibility to either, you know, rotate that chair or be a check on that, you know abusive power Not that there's much really. I don't think there's been much abusive power certainly No, no, and again, this is not a comment on the existing working groups This is an anticipation of bringing a new set of working groups in that are not technology related You know that are related to the adoption of this technology by different sectors And so the participants are going to be very different kinds of participants on those working groups Um, and they'll I don't know they might want to work Yeah, I think again we have now we have the working group reviews and Um, you know, I think we'll find out pretty quick if a chair isn't Being effective in in leading their group and that'll offer open opportunity for the tsc to maybe put out a call for People to you know to to fill the the gap if that's interesting to them Um, I would like to point out just that You know, if the if the chair isn't doing their job in a way, that's conducive to helping other people come into the community Uh, then it is possible that you end up with a Very select set of people who are participating in working groups even though there's others who would have liked to have joined Right, so I think you have to be careful in in whether or not something looks healthy But is truly not healthy And and making sure that you're truly aware of what's going on Behind the scenes which adds an additional level of burden. I think to the whoever decides to to govern these Well, so, okay, I think just to try to wrap this up. I guess Brian, I think I heard you say let's move forward with, you know, having the tsc essentially um ratify the proposed chair in a in a proposal and And and leave it at that I guess so yep and and at its leisure it could appoint a new chair. Sure. Yeah Okay All right, we'll go back to anybody have concerns with that No, but to the the comments about these upcoming working groups being maybe different from the other ones and the observation that we now have um, these these periodic updates to the tsc. I think that that's been effective from my perspective to I do as well. And I think that again, it's It's on us as the tsc to make sure that we're asking the right questions so that we don't have a pardon me A situation where a working group seems productive or active, but isn't really Yeah To that end. So I added a sentence up on a working products Underneath the working group application. I didn't Put much much time in a wordsmithing. I just typed it up now, but the intent there is just uh to be clear on What is it that we're expecting from the working group and then when the working group does come On those quarterly updates Is there something objective for us to be able to assess their progress with? I think I think the report back is the source of objectivity Where where you check that Yeah, but it's it's I guess what I'm just trying to have a little bit of discussion on to make sure that that we all have Similar or non conflicting views is what is the You know, what's what's the point of having the working group? When a working group comes in it's easiest for for me if I'm Overseeing some activity like that to know what the objectives are For that activity. So if if those are stated fairly clearly up front in the charter of the project They can always be added to or amended but I think sometimes we've we've seen working groups that are like discussion groups And it's it's harder for them to have forward progress because they don't have an objective that they're working to So I just wanted to Call that out for for that's my view in in assessing the working group and see if there's conflicting views of that Or whether that needs to be articulated more clearly in this template Any other comments if not, I think we should take it to a vote to to brian's point to well, I guess I guess, you know We should come back with a draft that removes the elections piece and just see so that changes other pieces I guess the other question I'd ask is if there's any other parts of the proposal that People wanted to with their open questions for or We needed to close and tracy. I don't know if your sense was that the elections piece might have been the only open remaining piece It seemed like that was the biggest Um concern that people had when I looked at the the comments brian the rest seemed pretty Straightforward that we could resolve them. I think the only other one that Um, somebody brought up was the agendas, but I personally wouldn't change Requiring agendas for our working groups So, um, but I guess I should not make decisions So Yeah, this is a tsc's call So, yeah, so I brought up the agenda thing in the canceling the meeting 24 hours in advance Given that we don't cancel tsc meetings 24 hours in advance. It's probably unreasonable to require working groups to cancel 24 hours in advance Uh, particularly when you get emails from people that I before a morning meeting being like, oh, hey, you know You know me and these five other people are at this conference. Sorry We can't make the meeting uh So I propose we scrap the 24 hour rule I I think is a matter of just being considerate to everybody that it's good to have that as a Stated intent Well, I mean, it's a great stated intent, but it's just never it never happens in practice not even Stated intent is one thing requirement or mandate is a totally different thing I agree Change please to please try to So I I suggest we move on, uh, I mean, I I agree But since this is going to come back next week Okay, well, um, we will I can change please to please try to uh and to try to get and keep that nudge in there But not make it a mandatory thing, you know, um I and I just wanted to make sure we could have a fast process on the next call And just say okay, you know, here's all the changes and let's let's uh prove it that call. Yep Okay, great. Thank you. Thank you all. All right. Thanks. Thanks Brian and Tracy Okay, next up is Uh agenda Where's the composer if uh composers up? Yes. Sorry. I couldn't see the agenda. So I think dawn is on Yep. Hey, can you hear me? Okay? I can Great. Hey, everyone. I'm Don Tebow. I'm one of the offering managers on the IBM blockchain team Um, I'll assume that everybody is familiar with hyper ledger composer and saw at least the Uh request Simon sent out to the listserv and I just posted the link to that in the chat um The net of it is that we'd like to move this latest release of composer version 0.19 Uh to being version 1.0 Um, and then also as well discuss the potential moon from incubation to active Uh, so as Simon outlined in his note, we feel we've met the majority of the requirements saved for one Uh, so I'll just go straight to that that one in question around community support Um, so today we have three maintainers Simon and caroline obviously from IBM As well as dan salman from clause Uh, we've seen strong community engagement for example, you know Over 20 000 downloads of the visual studio extension Uh engagement on rocket chat and stack overflow As well as the use of composer and a number of client engagements both within IBM Uh across a variety of industries with a number of other consulting firms as well as some industry companies So, you know, for instance meeting one from telco a few weeks back That's used it for they said around four to five projects. It's definitely an indication of its use Finally, we've also seen other projects start to build on top of composer for example one from Accord For something called sysro as well as a plugin that was submitted from an independent party for a wallet plugin for amazon s3 So we've seen again a good number of amount of community engagement as well as this being served as the foundation for a number of enterprise engagements and blockchain Um, so with that, I guess I'll pause there and open it up for discussions or comment there So I just wanted to add that there is also still the remaining license issues that need to be resolved prior to Composer going to 1.0, right? I know in in simon's email I had mentioned that licensing was not a concern but it still does have a few things that are outstanding that will need to go through the Legal committee if it stands as it is right now That's right. Okay. Yeah, I apologize. I should have mentioned that as well And has this I've gotten a security scan from netitude yet Uh, yes, I believe so Yes, I am sorry. I was muted. Um, no it has not been scanned by netitude. That's uh, the we held off on that because Um, that's triggered by 1.0 and I was waiting for Um, you know whether They needed to be out of incubation to be 1.0 Was resolved which sounds like it pretty much has and so if they moved to 1.0, we'll we'll get that process going Okay, but with uh with saucer fabric. We had tried to do this game before the 1.0 Yeah, yeah, what I held off on was the the fact that it was um It was still an incubation and needed clarification. So And netitude just wrapped up a roja so we can get on their schedule now But it still would take three four weeks at least that's correct. Yeah. Well probably longer they um, they said that if we didn't Do it back when we were in their schedule. It was not going to be until may ish Yeah, somewhere in there. So I will get him on the schedule if we're going to move forward on this It's Don have uh, has I IBM done a Security scan. I know that with fabric. We did that. I believe you've done it for composer as well Yeah, so I know we've done a large amount of internal testing And security scan as well. I'm not sure if there was a specific group you're referring to that did it But I believe so And don I missed your your relationship with the composer project is you're a you're one of the contributing developers on it or Uh, the offering manager product manager that works primarily with composer Yeah, the they're the uk team is on holiday Oh, okay, so the ibm product Uh, offering based on this. Okay Exactly I think this is really close, but I feel like um I I we need to get any licensing variation approved by the legal committee Um, I as as we'd required of sawtooth and fabric Before it goes 1-0 Got it So the just and I'll I'll get the uh security scan going. Um, if it's dsc wants to spend the money I'm assuming that's a yes, right? We want to spend the money. I think the core question is for the tsc is um Do you want to approve a 1-0 before the security scan is completed or not? I don't know that there's there's not a hard requirement in our in our standard, you know In our release processes and requirements for that But we always presume we do it pretty close to a 1-0 relief and ideally before Um, so that it yeah But yeah, but they were in accreditation. So it was like it wasn't very clear Yeah, no, I don't think there's anything on on you Dave. Yeah unclear uh Process that's the we're pathfinding through now Uh, so I I guess from my side if if simon or caroline were here. I'd want to have Some discussion with them on understanding the the scope that they were aiming the project towards and Uh, how they felt about its feature completeness and stuff like that And I I think it would be probably in the best interest of composer to do that with with them Yeah, so I can definitely speak to some of that. So some of the, you know, most encouraging signs we've seen is its maturity and scalability Uh, specifically around how it's aligned to hyperlegic fabric. So for instance, the support for our gs chain code Has given us a lot of enhanced capabilities um In terms of both exposure of various fabric elements, uh, as well as improved scalability numbers Um, again, we do feel it's been from a future perspective And especially supporting things like for instance club wallet storage It's been able to be used for a number again of more armor mortuary more mature client engagements I'm sure caroline and simon as well could speak to a number of the more specific Technical features they felt have gotten us there Okay, so does it sound like maybe we'll be picking this discussion up next week with them? Yeah, I'm happy to also start whatever's needed on our end from Security can't scan perspective as well as I know we have the licensing issue in progress right now But if needed we can make sure they're back on next week I'll get a date from netitude when they can start the security can't scan But I won't uh commit. We'll just uh, we'll get it lined up That'd be great. And I think don if we can sort of confirm that we've had um You know pen testing and and security audit done I think that would be useful. I know we did that with fabric I'm sure that sawtooth did something similar purposes um, and Yeah, and I think having simon or caroline on to answer testing technical questions would be helpful And then again, I think Um The other the other you know the security the license scan. I think we can be you know, we can do a convention based on you know that kind of thing So, uh, yeah, I think I think I mean, what's what's the general sense of the the group of the tsc From dan have what others Don't all speak at once How am I interpreting this? Awkwardly Um, maybe I can stimulate some some conversation. I guess the the thing that I would like the the maintainers to to be able to discuss is um What What the sort of feature complete means for them and what that might mean for Uh, the flexibility or inflexibility of of the architecture after that point And then hear from them some discussion about what what that breath looks like um Try to maybe also understand from that. What are the motivations of Going to a 1.0 now as opposed to Maybe after reaching an active status or maybe after some other level of feature completeness unless The discussion on that latter point is that the feature set today represents uh The the preponderance of what they aspire to for uh for the near future Well, don is as the offering manager. I mean from a feature completeness perspective. Where where is your sense? Yeah, I mean like I said, I think our sense is that we're there in in terms of what we're looking for added in the last two releases specifically Those resolved some of the key issues that we've been hitting In terms of the stability of the project to support, you know ongoing use You know through the context of client deliverables um specifically things like the modeling language um Some of the other technical APIs that have been exposed I'm not sure. Sorry. What what specifically I can give that will be helpful on this, but um It's very much been something that we're not looking to make any, you know fundamentally Breaking changes now as as we move to 1.0. It really hopes to be Something that would deliver bug fixes documentation updates And any other community problems that that surface Okay, so that that does help answer the question from ibm's perspective as an ibm product making use of of composer and I think probably what I would like to hear then next week is the Uh Sort of the the community you want that? All right So can I ask you do do we feel at this point like we should start the process of Setting up a meeting with our legal committee to start talking about licensing or we're still waiting for and maybe nobody on the call can answer this we're still waiting for the um the changes to be made As of the last license scan that was completed this week So I mean I can confirm that I think we're pushing for resolution on that I think it was just one remaining issue for the license scan So I'm not sure how frequently the committee you mentioned meets but it is something we're pushing to resolution as soon as possible Okay, they kind of meet on demand. Um, it can take you know, you don't we tend to not you know Want to give them just like a few days notice you want to give them, you know Week and a half or two weeks kind of notice to try to get most of them there um because this is you know general councils from um same group of people who are on the governing board And then ultimately if there is any variance from the standard, uh, it's going to be approved for the governing board But that can happen out of cycle. Um, but there is a governing board meeting coming up the middle of uh this month so Um, if it's an easy thing to do we should try to get it on the agendas if it's you know Longer let's take this to email. Um, just so we can see actually what the variances are Okay, we'll do it. All right. So we gotta get by next week. Yep I really hate zoom Okay, so we're seven minutes Left I could do the fabric update then if That's acceptable See Link is here Sorry, I'm just Fits in around. Oh, thank you. Okay Rocket chat is really slow. What's the deal? Okay fabric update, um so, uh, we continue to Be growing and maturing as a community in march. We had our one at one release. Yay um, and We continue to grow the mix of contributors Um, you know, we're down to the point where I think and again, I think Tracy, maybe you have some slightly different numbers But I'm seeing about 36 of the contributors from IBM Although it is true that about 80 of the code is coming from From IBM, uh, we do have a long tail, but it's growing and I think that's that's the good news um So we've had over the course of the past quarter. We've had 96 contributors 18 companies about almost 1,100 commits And almost 700 lines 700,000 lines of code Changed in that time period. Um, I think we have a good mix of Questions and answers and so forth in in in our chat and our email the the mailing list continues to Um, be a little bit spiky. It goes from about 250 to 350 We had about 380 I think it was during March when we had the release so it tends to spike around a release when there's new content and questions about that or, you know People are having discussions about getting to the new content um And then in stack overflow, we're actually having pretty good traffic there as well. We have 1,450 Questions, which is an increase of about 450 over The last report I did out And again the questions there continue to be increasingly sophisticated, which is a I think a good sign Issues again, we're we're trying to make more effective use of Jira. I think Dave to your previous Search for a Jira consultant that seems to be very expensive Um, and then we found out of course that others had been able to sort of show rye cup copy paste versions of A configured Jira. I think we've been able to sort of move past some of the impasse that we had previously and Have been able to change the configuration To to suit at least most of our interest. I think there's some integrations we'd like to do but that's not critical Great, we'll keep working on that then Yep as noted We we had our 1.1 release in march We also had An additional three releases. We did our 106 patch release And publish an alpha and a release candidate in the interim over the course of the first quarter The rate of downloads of fabric has nearly doubled. So I think a lot of that was driven by the 1.1 release and some of the The previous releases so again more good signs of uptake by the community And the other interesting point to note is that we're adopting a quarterly release cycle Going forward so the next release should be in end of june It talked about the activity over the last quarter already current plans Um, we published our one so we had a maintainers meeting in uh early february in boston Um, and we chose our sort of themes for the 1.2 release We also, you know at that point agreed that we're going to do quarter releases and so forth um And so we published our 1.2 roadmap and um And there's also a corresponding jura dashboard that has more detail On each of the epics that are being considered as part of the 1.2 release at least for now We have frequent playback meetings. Oh, I meant to put a link in here for that and for design review of new features and or improvements and We intend to continue the the process of having regular maintainer hangouts on zoom Where we'll track the the progress towards a release and having the other Discussion we you know the first one we had Damn it. I meant to put I had to do this twice because something happened and I lost the page I'll put in a link here to also to the We had a release retrospective Last week and I will publish the link to that document as well diversity of the maintainers Is static, but I see some potential on the horizon um to add new maintainers Not from IBM and from IBM Contributor diversity is uh, again, it's growing There's a number of new individuals that are Seemingly not affiliated That are starting to make really great additions and then we've also started to see contributions coming from Accenture bbda Oracle and block ledger Um, so those are the some of the new contributors that I've seen in the past quarter and um There continues to be some collaboration with borough on the fabric EVM project I demoed that for Gartner the other day and then I think you'll start to see some more collaboration Yesterday IBM announced joining the sovereign foundation for instance and Um, and we're hosting a node. So all good news um That's about it any questions. Am I the only one on? I guess that's it Mark will put you up first next week Okay, uh apologies for that. We had a long discussion on the working group stuff Um, and we're at end of job. So talk to you all next week. Cheers Thanks Have a good day everyone. Bye Bye