 All right. I am starting the recording now and let's get going. Okay. So good morning everyone. Thanks for joining. We have a light agenda today. In terms of where we were with various action items, I think we had the discussion around cello and then there was some discussion about whether or not cello and explore were somewhat overlapping. I think that in terms of function, certainly the monitoring aspects of things probably do overlap in some regard. And they probably also overlap with the work that was demonstrated at the hackfest on the sawtooth stats in that regard as well. But I just wanted to sort of get a checkpoint with Baohua and any others that were engaged in this conversation to see where we are and whether or not we just proceed with repositories for cello or what. So is Baohua on the call? Yeah. This is Baohua. And last week I talked with Padaoha and also Dan, who are the maintainers of the blockchain explorer. And we made some conversation and we both agreed that cello as an initial effort should be considered as an individual project. Okay. So basically the conclusion was they don't overlap is what you're saying. Yeah, actually we agreed there should be some closer collaboration but from the scope it is so because there is another project. Okay. Well if we do get to quorum then I guess we do have something to vote on. But we aren't correct, Todd. Yeah, so we're at 6 of 11 now so we need two more to get to quorum. All right. Okay. Next up is the China Technical Working Group. I think there was some back and forth discussion certainly I know between members of the China Technical Working Group and Brian and myself and a few others. And I don't know who's representing the CT, I don't know what we call it, the China Technical Working Group, CTWG, who's... I think we might have even been calling it TWG-T Technical Working Group China. Take your acronym. So I saw a couple of notes last night and unfortunately I wasn't feeling too well so I haven't really caught up. Brian, this is Brian. I could provide a quick saying and then Bawa since you're on the call and I'm not sure if Victor is as well but I could try to frame. So it looks like the team was met. They've also been working on a document to kind of describe some of the initial thinking and planning. There was one question that was open which was, you know, we created this with three chairs and essentially a working group of three people. And I think that was because we wanted just a very, you know, a kind of a bridge from that world to this and not a lot of, say, complexity and perhaps, you know, a difficulty in determining who should be on that group versus not. But I think there was a sense on their side that they did a membership to the way that there is membership in our other working groups. With them kind of together that initial membership. Of course every process still being public, everything still being done like our other working groups work. And so I think that's the only, that's the one point of potential TSC conversation now that's still out the way to that group is do we want to, you know, recognize kind of a membership to that community. And I'm neutral on the issue. I don't know Bawa if you want to say any more on that. Yeah, yes. These two weeks we are currently working on draft working guideline of the TWGC. And also we are collecting more volunteers as the resource of the working group. And hopefully we can bring some guideline draft to the TSC for review before the January. Okay, in particular Bawa, I was just wondering if you wanted to comment on the desire to have a membership to the working group. Kind of the issue we talked about last night, kind of your view on how you would pull that membership together and the importance of having kind of a named membership on the working group versus not. Yeah, actually we want to keep the work group as open to everyone and whether it's call it like a member or call it like a volunteer, we think both will be okay. But since as your nomination, there are three chairs present, we guess maybe there will be some members. How do you think? Maybe at this point open it up to others on the TSC if anyone else has thoughts on the subject. Yeah, yeah, sure. Hearing crickets. Then I would take that as largely consent to them with the recommendation or the emerging consensus from the China technical working group. So how about at some point over the next few weeks you can come back, whether on the list or in the next phone call, although that's not for a while, with a suggested slate of it looks like you're really thinking about 10 people for that working group. And you could propose those and we can go back and forth before then as well to continue some of those conversations. And then at some point as well you may want to update the WICI, the China technical working group, WICI page with some of the additional thoughts and projects and such. Yeah, so my perspective is that I guess I don't have a problem if the formal working group, just like we've done with the other working groups where there are people who are volunteering to invest some time and effort and energy into it, but the meetings are all open, the mailing lists are open. As long as we are operating under that same sort of approach where there's full transparency, no one is excluded from participation and so forth, then I think I'm okay if the working group is really just those who are signed up to do some real work. Sounds like that's the case in my opinion. And also I should mention on the working group, we'll have two folks from the – well, following the actions of the working group, not necessarily on the working group, but following the activity in the discussion forums will be two folks from the Linux Foundation, Min Yu, who many of you have met or know, who's based in the States but speaks fluent Mandarin, and Keith Chan, who is based in the region, and the members of the team are getting to know. So there'll be that connection as well. Excellent. Okay. Well, no motion needed right now. Just it sounds like there's broad consent. Right. And look, is there any other comments or could probably – I'll move to the next item. Any other closing thoughts? Actually, for this month, we are organizing a hardware meetup in Beijing, and hopefully in next month and also the February, we will organize more meetups before the hackathon. Yeah. No other issues. Right. And then we should also note that it sounds like there's consensus on March 10th and 11th for a hackathon in – is that in Shanghai or Beijing? Yeah. The meetup on March will be held in Shanghai. Okay. So is the – are we planning to have a hack fest that's coincident with that or what are the – I think we talked about that. I think that was desirable and we should get started on planning that. Yeah. Yeah. No to ourselves. Is there a sense amongst the members of the TSC and or anyone else that's on that they'd be interested and willing to have a hack fest in China? I know certainly I'm already signed up to go to the hackathon. Richard here. Just – I can't commit to a specific date, but I do intend to be in Asia generally in China more specifically, more often next year. So I'm in principle, yes. Okay. Thanks, Richard. Others? Yeah. I mean, this is – I know I would also go – Hey, this is Hart. In general, I can't commit to a specific date either, but kind of the earlier I know and the earlier these things get set up, the better chance I have of going. It did. All right. We're trying to get it to come out. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I was going to say, I think we'll make a note to get the hack fest side of this sorted out before the end of the year, you know, whether we'll do it there definitively or not. And we'll probably do it conjoint with but not overlapping with the hackathon so that hack fest participants who also want to be mentors or judges on the hackathon or even participants, competitors on the hackathon, would also have the opportunity. Hi, challenges of the land. It's Jeff John. Just want to know what's the distance between the hackathon and the hack fest? What do they both focus on? So the hackathon – yeah, go ahead. Sorry, Chris. Well, sorry, Brian. So a hackathon is – and we used to call these things – we used to call the things that the Hyperledger project did also hackathons, but it's misnamed. A hackathon is a contest, right, where people come and they engage and teams and they're going to build something over a weekend, you know, sleeping under the desk and so forth, you know, where there's certain scope and so forth and potentially prizes and what have you. That's the hackathon part that is listed, you know, that we've been talking about for the March 11th date. And that's being hosted by Wanda and sponsored by IBM and I think others in Shanghai on March 11th and 12th, I believe. And then we were talking about having a hack fest, which is our – every other month, you know, bringing the technical community of the Hyperledger project together for a couple of days. And we were talking about potentially having another back-to-back like what we did in Amsterdam where we had a hackathon over the weekend hosted by AB&MRO with, you know, prizes and so forth and many of us were judges and then we had a hack fest, again, the meeting of the Hyperledger project technical community the following two days, Monday and Tuesday. So we're thinking that that was a pretty good pattern to follow, right, because many of the members of the Hyperledger project were participating in the hackathon either as contestants or judges or mentors and so we were able to bring the community of people using the technology with those that are developing it together and that was, I think, very valuable. So we're thinking about doing something along that line where we have a contest on the weekend and then maybe the first couple of days of the week we would have a hack fest. Sounds very, very good to me. Absolutely. Thanks. Well, so Brian, are you going to – and Todd, are you going to send something out before the end of the year with prospective dates and maybe a survey or something of interest? Yeah. We'll take that as an action item to work with the group working on the hackathon to see if we can get some deal on space and some other sponsorship for the hack fest and the timing of that and we'll put something out. We'd like, in general, to get ahead. We also have an item on the agenda for today to talk about San Francisco in January. So yeah, we'll work on that and come back to the TSE. Okay. Cool. So if I may interject, I have to repeat my request for documenting as much as possible even if there are tentative dates for now. We have two pages that I know of. There is the events page on the Hyperledger website and then we have a public meeting schedule on the wiki and none of them, as far as I know, reflect any of these things. It makes it hard to know what's going on. So I would appreciate if we could put a bit of effort into doing this and again, even if it's tentative dates for now, it's still better to have that as a placeholder than nothing. Good point Arnaud. Thank you. Okay. Next up is the security badge discussion and we started that in the past about getting the security badge and I think, well, I guess Brian, were you going to lead this? Yeah, I have to admit I've not taken the phone since the last time we talked. Are there any volunteers? Otherwise, certainly, we can move forward with this. It really does mean reviewing the specification for the CII security self-certification really. We're hearing that and then coming back and saying here's what the project must do. Here's the overall Hyperledger project. Here's what our code bases must do, that sort of thing. And just come back with a set of tasks for us to roll through. Oh, okay. I'll do that. You sure? Yeah, yeah. That's fine. That'd be great. Okay, then next up is the proposed hack vest in San Francisco following construct on February 1 and 2, which I believe is a Wednesday and Thursday, if I'm not mistaken. The construct is on the 30th and 31st, which is on Monday and Tuesday. And so we've started asking around about space. I actually asked the construct conference planners. This is a coin desk conference. This is the same group. Unless I'm well mistaken, it does be a consensus conference in May in New York City. This is more of a CTO kind of focused on the conference, but it does seem like many of you likely will be there or could be there. If you'd like to be there, let me know. I think they're still putting together the invite and such, but it's about 400 people. It's being held at the Palace of Fine Arts, which is just across the street from the Linux Foundation headquarters. So those of you who are out for the hack vest that we did a couple of, several months ago in San Francisco, it's nearby. And I'm in contact with the construct planners about seeing if they'd like to partner up and work with us on doing this at the same space as construct. But we have some other options as well. So that's another thing Todd and I will take is action items to move forward on this. If anyone is in San Francisco and wants to look at other space alternatives or has other space alternatives in mind, certainly let us know. But the idea is that we would do it either the 28th, 29th, the weekend before, or the first and second afterwards and probably the first and second. It just might be easier to get space on that day. Does anyone have a preference or any of those thoughts on this? My preference would be to do it afterwards to continue the week if it's the construct is a Monday, Tuesday. So rather than doing it over the weekend, doing it during the week could be easier to schedule. Yeah. So I tend to agree with Nick. Certainly, for me, I've got to slip myself across the country. And I just as soon do it all in one go and not below a weekend. That's just me. I think for anyone scheduling, it's better to contain it in a particular section if that's possible. Yeah, we'll probably get a lower turnout. If we do it on the weekend. And Brian, you're interested. It's probably still best again to do it in San Francisco rather than South Bay area. That was a question that we went through that last time, trying to move it down to the IBM facility and a couple down in San Jose. Right. Well, it was mainly to try to be, you know, conjoined in somewhere with the construct conference. There's also a Stanford meeting. Let's see. Just before that, the 26-27. So, you know, I think it could be open. I think the benefit of being in San Francisco is potentially to be aligned with that conference. But, you know, that may be of questionable value, you know. And if it was hard to get a space up here at that time, I'd certainly rather have it down there than not at all. I'd suggest that maybe, you know, a survey or a doodle poll to get a sense of who's going to which conference, if at all, and preference for location of venue. I mean, you know, from my perspective, you know, having it in San Francisco is a little bit more interesting for nightlife and other things. But it's certainly down by IBM. It's not a lot. And I think that's... I was just going to chime in quickly. I think we did the doodle poll last time as well, and we can certainly do it again. And last time, it was roughly even with a slight favoring to San Francisco. Yeah. Okay. The IBM Facility South Bay is very good to stay focused on the work. There isn't much distraction. We just... That was really bad. We just started working on it. You've been watching cows? Watching cows is not interesting? Yeah. All right. I guess next up is Hart wanted to give us an update on the white paper working group. Yeah. I wanted to discuss kind of what steps we were taking to try to make sure that we had a white paper sooner rather than later and sort of stopped going in circles. Yeah. So our plan for, I guess, you know, approximately the next month or so, so we're going to finalize what we are calling a white paper skeleton. And we'll send that out hopefully in the next week or so. This will have sort of a couple of paragraphs about what we want to write and why, and then a general outline of the white paper. So we'll send that out to the TSC list hopefully sometime in the next week or so. And ideally people can read it and give us comments over the holidays. And then hopefully at one of the first meetings in January, we can get a TSC approval on sort of the skeleton of the white paper, at which point we can, as a group, you know, split it up and write the thing and hopefully everyone's okay with it. So I guess the crux of the matter is we'd like to get TSC approval on an outline essentially so that we don't get stuck in this endless cycle of circular changes. Does that generally seem okay with people? That works for me. Absolutely. That seems to be a wise move. You know my feelings on this. Yes, we do. Yep. All right. So that sounds like a good plan, part. Thanks for driving that. Awesome. Yeah, we'll try to get that sent out within a week or so. And then everyone, and particularly TSC people, if you can take a look and get back with us, get back with some comments so that, you know, what we don't want to happen is we don't want to be bringing this up for a vote and someone says, oh no, no, you know, you need to redo this whole part of it and we don't want to get stuck in something circular like that. So the earlier the comments come, the better. And thanks everyone. Okay. All right. So everybody look out for that so that we can maybe turn the outline around during the holidays. Actually, that brings up a good point. We didn't put this on the agenda, but just to sort of review the meeting schedule for the next few weeks. We had planned on canceling the next two TSC meetings, which would be the, was it the 22nd and the 29th, I think? Yep. The 22nd and 29th. Yeah, 22nd and 29th. And so the next TSC meeting would be January 5th. Hopefully everybody is back then and we should be able to reach a quorum, but it was basically felt that people would be, you know, either taking time off. I know I plan to try and take a little bit of time off the last week and I'll be working on and off during the next couple of weeks, but hopefully everybody is back in time for the 5th. So the next TSC meeting will be January 5th and hopefully then we can pick up and get an agreement on that date for your outline. Sounds great. Next up, just as a reminder, we talked about, and this was largely driven by you know, input from Nick as well and I want to thank you for that. To get each working group to sort of document in some sort of a charter before the January 12th, which would be the second meeting in the new year. And so I just want to remind everybody to, that they need to be working on that and to bring them to the TSC by the 12th. We won't necessarily approve them on the 12th if there hasn't been enough time, but I do want to sort of set a target for when everybody can get theirs in. And of course you can always get it in earlier and then that way it gives people time to review it. But that's just a reminder. And then, Brian, you want to talk about the internship program? Sure, I mean I would share it with Todd as well if you'd like that or anything. But we're still putting this together, but one of the next steps is looking at the people who would be mentors for these interns. And I think the idea is across our different projects we have individuals able to spend a couple of months coming up to speed and hopefully contributing in some non-trivial way. And to get their, you know, certainly they'll depend upon the community. You know, they climb the learning curve and get to be productive. And very similar to Google's summer of code, you know, it's very, I think, important to have some mentors involved in at least one mentor per to act really as a more persistent presence in that mentor's experience. So, you know, the requirements shouldn't be too hectic, but it should be, you know, quick turnaround on email right here and there and maybe a few phone calls. You know, and face-to-face if that works out, but certainly not required. Todd, anything else? What is the expectation for the interns? Are they going to be in the San Francisco office or where would they be located? What is the mentorship? Is there a job description? No, I don't think we will be requiring them to be in the San Francisco office or expecting to be, although any of you who do happen to be around, certainly that would be great. But no, we'd like to find, you know, the right mentors no matter where they're located around the world. So, and then, you know, the expectation is that they're still somebody probably in school, that they're probably still working their way through, you know, kind of a standard curriculum of computer science, that they have an interest in blockchain technology space and they simply want to learn more. I'd expect that they probably should have some experience with open source software development, but they still may be rough around the edges on that too. So, some of the mentoring may be on how to participate in a community, how to ask smart questions, how to give good feedback to others, that sort of thing. So, as much, you know, in the guts on a particular project, I think the hope is that they do contribute something substantive to one or more of our code bases. But that is as much about that as it is about training them on public software development, open source development. Is that anything to add? No, I just dropped a few links in there. One is just for the umbrella internship program at the Linux Foundation, just talking about it in general across the roughly 50 projects we host. And then I dropped in a link for Open Mainframe's internship program, which just should add a little more color to what we're working towards developing early next year. And are these general undergrads or grad students? And I'm asking specifically because I've got someone that asked me about internships to move a code base into a hyperledger from MIT. She's a grad student. I wouldn't want to tie an internship to something like that just because that is more of a... That's as much technical as it is as a political, but that's a fairly sophisticated thing and I'd like to be open to that whether or not we accept a particular person as an intern. But other than that, I don't know that we've limited to undergrads, but I haven't read the whole Linux Foundation policy on this stuff. And I would personally be happy to take a grad student. Okay, thanks. Can you answer the question about is this a full-time summer internship? Yeah, it is. And there should be some details on the Open Mainframe page. And if not, I can send a quick summary of what we see in on-pass projects as well. I guess that's it unless anybody has any additional agenda topics. Yeah, let us know if you want to be a mentor. I guess the wrap-up of it. Yeah. On any other topics, Chris, since we didn't have a quorum here to vote on Cello, do we want to try to do an approval by email between here and January? Sure, I can start that off. I'll draft a note right now. Okay. And if we're not ready, enough to TSE feels that there's still some more evolution of the proposal required, that's fine too. Just wondering if we are ready, you know, then we can get the list set up and open the door for that community. I'm not hearing any pushback. I'll send a note right now. Okay. I guess that's it. So I wish everybody a happy holiday season. And we'll talk at all not before. Thanks everyone. Have a good break. Happy holidays, everyone. Bye-bye.