 Okay, the meeting is underway and the floor is yours. All right, thank you, Rai. Thank you everybody for joining. Welcome to the new cycle of the TSE. I'm again, very honored to be the chair. And so I hope you all use the few minutes and that I've passed to take a look at the antitrust policy notice. We also have the code of conduct, which basically says, don't be a jerk, be a decent person, be polite with each other. So with that further view, I think we can get started. I did put, I didn't have my time in the announcement of my position and the discourse. So I still put together an agenda. And so I hope it's enough to get us started. Brian. Yeah. Hi. Sorry, I couldn't make it last week. But now I get to combine both a welcome to the new to it to the new TSE and a welcome to the new TSE chair. And congrats are no on having been elected. And I definitely want to thank Dan for very confidently managing the community for the last year and helping us navigate through some extremely complicated and weighty issues. And I've, I think, you know, I know your participation, you know, especially this last year, I think was really, you know, a key to people being very comfortable with you taking this role as well. And turnover is good. Change is good. One of the things that was exciting about the new TSE is that, you know, we have five new voices there. And, you know, I think that that kind of 50, 55, 44% I guess turnover or 40, 45% turnover is is about right. You know, I none of us should feel like this is a job for life or a commitment for life and be able to move on. And so, yeah, I think that's pretty healthy. And there's no doubt many of you have seen there's some confusion out there in the world about what being on the TSE means. Being on the TSE does not mean representing your company. It does not mean representing the projects that you're on. It means representing yourself and your take is the right thing for the hyperledger technical community as a whole. And I have complete confidence having met and engaged with each one of the TSE members at times in the past, some less than others and those I haven't gotten to know as well. I get to know better. Angelo and Troy, I don't think I've engaged enough with you, but I would love to find some time to chat. But I feel like, you know, as long as both in our commitment and in the actuality of how we, you know, work together as a TSE, we reflect, you know, ourselves and and our best understanding of how to make open source work. I don't think any of the outside concerns about how this plays out or have any sort of merit. So with that, I just want to say thank you to all of you who not only got elected, thank you to all the others on this call who ran as well. And I am also very encouraged by the conversations about potentially, you know, increasing the size of the TSE and some interesting approaches to it. So with that, I'll hand the mic back to Argo. Thank you, Brian. And of course, I second what you said about my predecessors, both Chris and Dan, and I feel like they have big shoes to feel, but hopefully I won't disappoint and be able to get us further down the line. So with that being said, I think Dan, you're the one who set up the maintainers submit. I did look at the list of agenda topics. There is quite a few that have been proposed. How are we doing? Yeah, so I think we're still looking for some more participation. I reached out on some of the different rocket chat channels, some of the projects that I didn't see a lot of names from. So still hoping to get the participation up for that. But yeah, it's nice to see the list of agenda topics growing. We can start to schedule those out soon. Very good. But so the registration is low for now? I don't remember numbers off the top of my head. I mean, it wasn't bad, bad, but it was either. There were some projects that weren't well represented. Okay. So I mean, if you need help reaching out to those specific projects, let me know. I'll see what I can do. Thanks. Anything, any questions on this from anybody? Yeah, I don't have access to it. But Salona, do you have access to the registration sheet that you could give us a sense for how many people are there? Sorry, mute button. I believe, I haven't checked it today, but yesterday I think we had about 22. There was a lot from sawtooth. I think we're, and this is, I don't have it in front of me. But there were definitely a lot of projects yet who didn't have representation. And so there was sawtooth, there was some transact. There was fabric. I believe Nathan's coming from Indy. Slash areas. But I don't remember a lot of some of the others having representation. So. And one, one thing I'll add is, you know, we believe it's important to be able to get people there. We know that asking people to travel to, you know, to the United States to, you know, whether that was Minnesota or New York City or wherever can be a challenge. If there's any maintainer out there, especially on a project that isn't well represented yet in that group, for whom the travel costs, I mean, we've not created a formal travel program assistance program yet. But if informally, it would be helpful to be able to get airfare and have a few nights of hotel covered at some reasonable cost. Do get in touch with Solana or myself and we can talk about it. All right. That's great news. Thanks, Brian. I had two questions if that's okay. One, will there be any specific TSC activity there? I know we'd like the TSC members to go. And the second would be, is there anything, you know, can we propose and have working group people there as well? So no, I'm not planning on there being any TSC subjects there. And I think for this maintainer summit, it'd be good to just see how much we can focus around code and projects. And, you know, I think that's sort of the focus of it. Let me also try to add what I find works best when open source communities that really try to be inclusive, do you have these kinds of face to face summits and gathering is to really focus on creativity, collaboration, the kind of back and forth around a white board that is hard to do, you know, virtually, but avoid things that are decisional, you know, that either, you know, unintentionally or whatever, you know, exclude the people who couldn't make it there, who couldn't be in the room. So it'll, I'm sure be a great opportunity to figure out things like, well, how might Transact and Fabric work better together? How might the different projects make better use of Indy, you know, that sort of thing. As I understand it, there's one or two people coming from Consensus who will be able to talk about Bezu. So working that in is going to be a really, in figuring out where those touch points are. I mean, all these kinds of things are about ideation, you know, and if you can just make sure, you know, the results of all that work get brought back to the relevant project lists and JIRA tickets and other kinds of things. That would be the best kind of outcome for my take on what, you know, this meeting could accomplish. Yeah, definitely the overarching goal is cross-project collaboration. So it's, maybe there'll be an opportunity for individual projects to have some discussion, but it should really be cross-projects that should not imply to anybody the kind of things like, well, here's our release objectives for Sawtooth or, you know, something like that, that would normally take place on the mailing list or through RFCs. So I'm just taking a really quick look here at the responses. We have 23 people have signed up and it's one from consensus. All right, I mean, you know, I always say for these kind of meetings to be successful, we need to have agenda items. I mean, I was encouraged to see we have quite a few that have been proposed. Obviously, it only works if enough people show up as well, but hopefully we can close that gap in the next few weeks. All right, so let's move on then. Silona, there's a bootcamp coming up. So the Russian bootcamp is moving along. We're going to be doing the big press for, the big press for press next week. So registration is up, all the stuff is up. We just have to get some of the session leaders to get all of their sessions in, but we do have a bunch of session leaders who've already said that they want to do it. They just haven't created their sessions yet and put them on the grid. But I like to have that grid partially filled out before we do the big press push. So they're all working on that this week. And then we'll be doing our blog post about it and they're going to be doing their press releases and we're also going to be hitting telegram, Facebook and some other social media to get people to register and sign up. All right, thank you. Any questions for Silona? Okay, hearing none, let's continue then. So just a quick note on the quarterly report template. I actually made a change yesterday. I mean, right, really made the change, but on my request, I was reflecting on, you know, with my new hat on, how I could try to even streamline further the processes and those calls and focus, you know, to give us more time to focus on maybe what people really expect the technical state committee to focus on. And, you know, thinking of the quarterly reports, I have to say I have, and, you know, I really think that we have improved in having these reports put online beforehand and having people be able to review them and try to basically not have the reporters go through them verbally, but essentially try to focus discussion on, you know, anything that's worth highlighting. And at the same time, you know, sometimes I think it's not always easy, maybe in some cases, there's some language barrier that makes that more difficult than other times. And so essentially I decided to make one change to the template and which is to add a section that explicitly gives the reporter the opportunity to report, to highlight topics or issues, questions they want to raise to the TSC. And so my expectation is this would, you know, allow us to maybe go even quicker through the reports and, you know, by highlighting what we really need to talk about during the calls, if anything. And, you know, hope there may be cases where you have nothing to say and that's totally fine. But at least I know that there are cases in the current reports, the latest reports that I went through where they were mentioned, oh, we'd like the TSC to review this, the case of the taxonomy, for instance. And so I thought it'd be good to have that highlighted in the report with a specific section. So I figured this would not be controversial. So I kind of took the liberty to just go ahead and make that change. I hope everybody, you know, finds this suitable. I just have a question seeing the highlight. Is that question slash issues for the TSC or is that questions for the TSC and other issues that need to be, like, I'm just. Yeah, yeah, that's a good point. I think it meant to be question slash issues. All right. You're able to change that. Yep. Yep. Okay. Anything else? All right. So that's what I was hoping for. They would be not controversial. And people would just think that it's a good improvement. So let's move on. Then the next thing that I want to highlight, you know, is again, trying to be a bit more structured on how we address some of the issues that, you know, are being brought up to the TSC or that the TSC has to or wants to tackle. I figured we could try to use the wiki and we started doing a little bit of that through the task force. And as you guys know, I, you know, I took the lead on the task force and life cycle. And so I kind of went through some pain in learning how to, you know, effectively use the wiki. And so I thought I would try to use that experience to the benefit of the TSC. And so I created a new section to basically keep track of the topics that, you know, are being, how to be discussed or, you know, decided on by the TSC. And so you will see that in the navigation bar on the left on the wiki, and there are links there at the top of the menu. There is a section called pending topics for the TSC. And basically anybody feels, you know, feel free to add a page there. All you have to do this list basically is automatically updated with a macro. All you have to do is create a page, which is a child of that page, and it will add it automatically to that list. And then there's another section called closed topics where we move things there once we are done with them. By the way, it doesn't mean we have made a decision. We may decide not to tackle it, which is why it's called closed topics, because there may be different ways of closing them. So you can see that, you know, we've populated that section quite a bit already, and I'm happy to see that there's quite a discussion that has already happened. You know, I think we're better off trying, I was debating over the granularity of those. I think we are better off keeping them fairly small, which is why, you know, there are quite a few there that are related to the size of this TSC, the election, the process, how many, the quorum and all that. And rather than having one page with all of that, I think we're better off having them, you know, handled individually so that we have more siloed threads that are easier to follow. And so again, I also created a few that basically placeholders that point to other things like the sub-projects refer to the last issue we have related to the life cycle task force. And I created some for the work groups as well. And, you know, this is just the beginning of this. I encourage other people to come and add to it as they see fit. But, you know, I hope you find this to be useful. And so there's a link in the agenda at the end called Backlog, which basically is populated with that same macro that shows all the topics that are being currently listed, the spending, and this will, you know, give us an oversight on what's going on there. Any comments or questions? So I have a comment. I know one of the backlog items at some point was the decision log. And I'm assuming this is part of that. But I do know that Confluence has a, I don't know what it's called, plug-in, a macro, a something that is basically a mechanism for you to do this sort of thing with a log page, right, where all the decisions are captured together and then it has a status about where that decision is. And I wonder, you know, similar to how we have on the Wiki with kind of the headers for working groups and the headers for projects, if we should do something similar to that, where we can actually see kind of the status of these backlog items, right? Are they in progress? Are they completed? Are they resolved with the decision? That sort of thing. So maybe, maybe I'll, what I'll do is send a link to the decision log that I used in the past. And we can take a look at that and see if it helps this progress process, any? Yes. Thank you, Tracy. And I have to tell you, you know, I keep forgetting that one. And every time I remember it when I'm away from my desk, and I think, oh, I need to add one item about that. And then when I come back, I forget. So I'm glad you, you bring it up. And I think we should create an item about this. So at least it's on the reader. I, you know, I welcome any kind of suggestion on how to do that better, obviously. So I'm very interested in what you can share there. Yeah, we'll do. And so one thing I do want to highlight is my expectation is, you know, so the backlog at the bottom of the agenda basically gives us a view of what's there. And, you know, as things progress and mature and are ready for decisions, I will highlight those as part of the discussion section directly as well. Right. So everybody else, any other suggestions or comments, questions? I hope you guys find this useful. I like it. All right. So I have this kind of organization to help you. All right. Thanks. Okay. So if there's nothing else, then I think we can move on. I put one agenda item really for that was meant to be for discussion. You know, we have, as it was pointed out, five new members. And I actually don't mean to limit that to the new members if other people were there before and are still around, you know, have topics they'd like to point out, you know, I'm happy to open the floor to others. But I was interested specifically about the new members. And I thought it could be interesting to hear from them, not the bio, because anybody can go look at the nomination statement and see the bios, but more what, you know, they would be interested to see being tackled by the TSC moving forward. And, you know, any ideas on what's broken, what we could change, do better, I think is welcome. I know that there are people who've kind of lamented on the fact that we don't focus so much on technical issues. And I feel the pain there. You know, I will say that I'm a bit, I was a bit surprised. Let's say that, you know, we have been left with a framework that's actually fairly weak. And there's a lot of those questions that we are tackling now related to the TSC election and the terms and all this stuff that I would have expected us to have from the get go, especially with the Linux Foundation that has made similar projects going on. I thought we would have inherited the template, you know, bylaws with a lot more details than we have. And because we don't, we unfortunately end up having to deal with a lot of this that we have to define for ourselves. I am all in favor of trying to, you know, limit this to the minimum, try to be as expedient as possible so that it doesn't take all our time. Because I don't think anybody really want to run for the TSC to talk about the number of seats we should have at TSC. But, you know, this is just something we have to do because, you know, that's just the way it is. So with that being said, you know, I don't want to take up all the time. So let's try to get through the list. Angelo. Yeah, thank you. So let me tell you that unfortunately I'm sick, but I wanted to join this meeting because it's my first TSC meeting. So I'm very happy to be part of this group in driving and shaping Hyperledger. So let me say just a few words quickly. I'm very sorry for that. But as you can check for my short bio, I'm a very technical guy. I'm a photographer. And I think blockchain technologies exist because crypto exists. So my stress will be on these topics. To put more and more crypto at the center, to have more and more advanced technologies in Hyperledger to improve the aerobicity between the different platforms. So that's for me the goal as a member of the TSC. And with that, please don't let me say more words because I'm very but thank you so much for all the people who also voted for me. I really appreciate that. Thank you. All right. Well, thank you Angelo. Thank you especially to show up for showing up even though you don't feel good. So thanks. And you're very welcome. So I don't think Gary has shown up. Busy. Gary is not on the call. Okay. All right. Are you there? Yeah. I'm here. So excited to be here. Terms of things that I was excited or what I want to kind of tackle as part of the TSC now. I think the last couple of years on Hyperledger, I've done. I've been always interested to see how some of these projects can work together. What are the things that come out of that? And from a TSC standpoint, seeing how to enable that and make those kind of getting those technical discussions started. How do we make sure they, you know, they go move forward, make progress. Those are the things I'm interested in and seeing how from here at this standpoint, how we make that kind of more inclusive and basically more possible because I feel like we do have a lot of projects, but that cross project collaboration doesn't always work and it is a difficult thing. So trying to see how that can go forward and become easier. Yeah. All right. Thank you. I think that you can definitely help us there because you, of all people have actually been working in that space with the chain code EVM for fabric. So with cooperation with borough. Yeah. Yeah. Very good. Thank you. Tracy. Yeah, I'll plus one. I think that definitely, you know, that cross project collaboration is going to make us stronger. Right. We're going to end up with projects that. We'll, we'll meet the needs of many, right? Instead of the needs that needs of potentially fewer. Right. For me, I really want to focus on how do we make the, the community itself stronger, right? Making sure that it's easy for new people to get involved and stay involved. You know, I think the whole diversity, civility and inclusion working group that's been formed is, is, is extremely important. And, and something that, you know, we as the TSE need to, to nurture and make sure that it, it exists. I think, you know, that's part of making sure that it's, that people will want to stay, right? When they feel like they're part of a community that. Is welcoming to them and that they want to participate in is, is something that's important. Some of the other things that I've, I've heard kind of come up recently, I think is, is around the working groups and what specifically they need to accomplish, right? And so I think being potentially a bit more directive from the TSE to the working groups instead of letting the working groups focus, I think is important, right? I think if I look at the working group history, they were, they were formed with a certain thing in mind and maybe that thing is no longer relevant because they've accomplished that goal. So what, what can they be accomplishing or working on now to make sure that they're, they're successful in what they're doing. And yeah, so I think those are kind of top of mind at the moment. And again, thank you for, for voting for me. I'm really looking forward to, you know, making the community stronger and working with everyone to do that. All right. Thank you, Tracy. Again, you're welcome. Troy. Thanks, Arno. First of all, I'm quite excited to be joining these meetings and it's really quite a privilege for me to be here. So thank you to everybody. Of course, I'd like to echo what the others have already said. In particular, I think focusing more on, on technical topics is of course of interest to me. And especially looking at how do we do better interop between applications that have a DLT backing. That was one of the reasons I was quite excited about the area project where that's effectively one of the explicit goals of that project. And I'd really like to see more of that going forward. All right. Thank you. Okay. So let me turn to the, to the, to the, to the existing or, I mean, we all know, but to the previous members, you know, who were there before and maybe anybody else who wants to bring up any issues they think we should focus on moving forward that maybe has not been focused on so much silence. Okay. So we're doing great. We're doing everything we should be doing is that what that means, right? Hey, Arno, this is Dave Huseby. There are a number of little issues that are about governance that we should probably bring up with the TSE. I was planning on getting you guys, you know, letting you get settled before hitting with this, but there are things around like authorship and copyright. When we publish software to third party distribution platforms like crates.io, npm, that kind of stuff. Like a lot of little, you know, niggling details that I'd like to have the TSE weigh in on, because we've had some disagreements amongst the projects. And it always comes back to where's the policy. And a lot of times we don't have the policy. So we've been, Rai and I have been collecting a lot of these little things. And I think you can expect us to send you guys send the TSE mailing list. A series of questions we'd like the TSE to address and to come up with a rough policy. Well, no, not a rough policy, a specific policy so that it can be enforced. All right. Thank you. That sounds good. May I suggest you create topics under the pending topics for consideration by TSE for those? Yeah, we'll do. Thank you. And by the way, I mean, you know, there's always contention about how much we should work offline versus on the calls and stuff. Just so you know, my philosophy is that we should work offline as much as possible, but in my experience calls are a good way to force closure on some of the discussion that otherwise purely offline tend, you know, are hard to reach and I'm not saying it's impossible. There are clearly communities that work entirely offline, but I think, you know, we can be more efficient in closing issues with calls every now and then like we have now every weekly to close some of the topics that are happening offline, but I certainly encourage people to, you know, entertain discussions offline as much as possible between the calls. Whether it's on the mailing list or the wiki, I don't have a strong preference. Yeah, so. So I know I was trying to find my mute button. Okay. Unfortunately I found it. So I was about to say, you know, I'm hoping that this round we can spend more time with technical steering and, you know, deciding the direction we want to go. I think hyperledger has grown a lot and the industry has changed a lot since hyperledger was formed. And, you know, we've danced around the convergence and what does that mean? And I don't think anyone thinks that it means we'll have a single DLT, but, you know, where do we want to go as a group? Do we want the Apache model of, you know, as many projects as we can do we want, you know, something that is more, you know, a lot of cross-project collaboration, which I think is the way we're going, but it would be good to have some discussions on that, you know, from a technical point of view, where do we want to be in the year? You know, things like that. And then we can figure out how to stay the course to get there because we are a technical steering committee. So, you know, figure out where we want to go and how we want to get there. Yeah, well, I understand this is an interesting topic for sure and an important one. I think it's a tough one, but, you know, I appreciate it. Thank you. Yeah, I hear a lot of people say this interest in doing more technical steering and it feels like a lot of times our discussions gravitate towards the things that are immediately in front of us as the steering committee, which tend to be more procedural. And so maybe that's something that we can be conscious of as we start to look at these governance and election questions and stuff like that. Maybe we sort of cap the amount of time that we're willing to spend on each of these in order to give more time to the technical matters. We might really benefit our long-term interests more than some of these things that are in front of us today. Yeah, this is interesting thought. And it's a hard balance to find, right? And because we've discussed this, you know, there are issues about how much steering can we actually do given the independent projects and the fact that they all kind of follow their own course. And, you know, I think I've never heard anybody say we shouldn't encourage convergence into, you know, cross-pollination, integration, all this good stuff. And yet, at the end of the day, we can't force anybody to do it. And so, you know, there's only so much, you know, we can do. So I think we have to create an environment that definitely favors these integrations and cross-projects but initiatives. But, yeah. So I'm happy to, you know, get the TSC to work, to try harder to get there for sure. Chris is on. Welcome. So anybody else? We haven't heard her go from. No? All right. So we, let's, let's move on then. We had the quarterly reports. I have a couple of things to highlight. So the smart contracts working group sent a report. I am not sure why it's labeled Q2 given the date at which it was created. Is Sophia on by any chance? I saw a few of us actually did review it and some ask questions and I haven't seen in response. So maybe they are not here and they're not in position to respond. But I don't think there's any major issues, but there were some questions that would be interesting to get answers to. Okay. So if there's nobody from that group, I guess we'll have to leave it alone for now. We can try and get back to it next week. The other one is the learning material development working group. Bobby. Hello, how are you? Yes, hi. So you may have heard what I said earlier about, you know, highlighting issues or questions for the TSE. I know you have some. Yes. If you want to go to the report, if that's possible. Yeah. We're looking at it now. Okay. First, I just wanted to thank everybody and congratulate the winners for the TSE. It was a privilege to be considered in the group, especially someone who is not a coder. So I do appreciate that the consideration it was quite an honor and congratulations looking forward to the leadership. Again, the learning materials working group is goals or just trying to support the learning needs of the community. And we're trying to do that by setting up a library for one stop information. So we, you know, redesigned our wiki page to have information on how to get involved, how to get a Linux login, how to join the calls, how to edit pages. Again, all learning information to onboard to help. And then the next big thing is the resource library and that resource library we would like to house all the documentation that's been created in the community. And basically how we want to do that is by a some jumping down a little bit on the working group health report, but is by a survey. And I know that the TSE previously had mentioned wanting to survey the community, especially the project maintainers, just to get information on contact people and how to get in touch and who to get in touch with when meeting information from the projects, working groups and special interest groups. So the learning materials group also needs a survey to go out to find out what documentation everybody's already created so that we can store it in this library. So we were going to take on the task of if, again, with the permission of the TSE and with your guidance, doing a community survey, getting the questions answered that all the groups, you know, could be a group, everybody can get questions in the survey that they need to answer to make each one of these community groups more efficient. So we wanted to work on that this quarter on getting that done so that that resource library can be a real source for the community to go to for education and learning materials. Again, right now on the homepage, there's the new over general the general presentation that everyone can give discussing the Hyperledger greenhouse as it stands this quarter. And that's updated quarterly. So you can always find that presentation on our homepage updated. We'd like that to be basically where all the documentation can be found for all the community to look at. That's about it. If anybody has any questions. So the the DCI workgroup is also interested in putting together a survey for substantially different reasons. And one of the sensitivities that they've been exploring is how not to over survey the community. So, you know, a couple of different surveys going out. We're going to get fewer and fewer responses. So it might be good to coordinate with them if it's likely to hit the same people. Absolutely. I was hoping it, you know, to do get all the questions from the community that they need answered and do just one survey. And we set up on our wiki page a way to manage that already. So like we put the different groups and when we'd send the survey out and when it came back. So the wiki page is already set up to handle a survey of that size. We just need the support of the community to gather the questions that we need answered. And then the only other thing I didn't really touch on is the best practice documentation. And we're trying to, we're working with Salona to try to develop standards for white papers, use cases. We have the graphic library getting set up. So that should help people and they need to develop learning materials to be able to find the right logos and the right style sheets. So that's there too. And we're working on a community key term glossary so that when you're creating documentation, you can look at and decide what definition the community has for these terms that are constantly changing. And again, once we compile the key terminology section or the glossary, we wanted to prove the definitions approved by the TSC or by somebody before we say, he's ready. So that's basically what our group has been working on. Again, membership. We've got a few new members. We need new leadership. We need new people to join the group so that we're really working on our onboarding and getting people to get involved. All right. So thank you. I mean, for the, for the terminology, I, you know, I expect you at some point have been to flag it and say, hey, now we think we're done. Can you please review it? And then we can all have a look at that for the survey. You're saying you would like to get questions from the TSC. You know, anyone who needs questions answered in a survey to send us the questions and then we would just send out one community survey. Yes. So we heard from Dan there's the DCI working group also doing something similar. Do we have anybody else who knows of any of those, you know, needs or anybody who has some questions they would like, I'm trying to get, you know, just to understand where I'm trying to get to is, you know, if we just say TSC in general, it's like everybody and nobody. So, you know, my fear is nobody answers. Nobody says anything and you're left wondering, didn't, did they not hear me or does this mean they have nothing? So I want to be more precise about the question and, you know, hear an active no rather than not knowing whether you're just being ignored. Well, again, we'll take the survey page on our wiki site. Anyone can edit and add questions and that's right where we are at now is each project or the projects that work in groups and the special interest groups have a section. So if anybody has any questions for those communities, they can go to that page and add the questions because right now we're just compiling questions for the surveys. Okay, sounds good. Thank you. Obviously you don't want to have too many questions either, you know, back to what Dan was saying and I agree that having too many surveys is not going to be good, but having a service that's too long is not good either. You know, I'll share with you some, you know, some experience. Currently IBM HR has some series, a whole series of polling questions. They send one question every week. It takes two minutes to answer and I think they have great response because it's very simple to answer them. So I think there's, you know, you have to find the right way to go at this. So I would just add that I think it's important that we understand the goals of surveys, right? What are we trying to get out of it? What sort of information? I think that was really helpful when the DCI Working Group came up with goals for what it is we wanted to get out of this survey to help us focus our questions. So do we have goals for the survey? Is that listed on the wiki pages as well? For, I can add the goals. I know the goals that I heard in prior TSC conversations where they would like contact people. So they know when they need to contact the different projects or groups who that would be. And for the learning materials, we again just want to collect the documentation. That's already been created. So the discussion that we'd had to my recollection in the past on that was that staff was looking for the consolidated list of points of contact. And some of the feedback from the projects was just hit the mail list. It ends up being difficult to have sort of subsets of maintainers that get pinged for things that doesn't, that can lead to some divisiveness in the communities. So that was my recollection of how we resolved that was that we weren't going to create special contact lists. Yeah. And I guess then similar to that, right? Use that mailing list to request documentation. Correct. You might also think for that resource library, instead of trying to consolidate all the documentation and maintain links that might change if there's a way that you can provide instead some. Guidance for consistency amongst the project. So if you just go to the wiki page for the project, you can consistently find the documentation. That way it should just be, if people are looking for documentation on a project, they go to the project instead of winning their way into a library and then back out to the project. Again, this library also is for more people who are trying to just get involved in the community and don't really know what they're looking for so they can see the projects and see the documentation that's available for each one. You know, instead of having to go to each individual wiki page for the documentation, that's kind of the idea. I'm not sure if that's a good idea, but that was the idea. Anything else on this? Anybody? There's clearly a lot of work going on, so I appreciate all the effort that you're putting into that. One thing for me actually, we've just put up a GitHub IO page for Burrow, using like a dynamic page generator thing. Would it be better for that to be hosted on the main project page on Hyperledia, which is a little sparse at the moment. Currently we're just linking to this doc site on GitHub pages, but I'm not sure what the most consistent thing to do would be. That's the one. That would be the link that we would put in the resource library. So there'd be a link to all the GitHub repositories for each one of the projects. This isn't the GitHub repository, this is GitHub pages being used for hosting. Yeah, but Bobby's referring to this effort there starting is to try to collect all the pointers to the different documentations of the different projects and information about the projects. So that would fall into that. But I'd like to do your question though. I mean, I think, and I, you know, I was in the marketing meeting yesterday on the marketing call, and there were questions about the websites and I think there's still work that needs to be done from a Hyperledia point of view, in terms of how we organize all the different pages, different projects. And, you know, there's still a couple of projects that have top level domains that are a bit at odd with everything, how everything else is done. And so I think there is a bit of cleanup effort going on. Hopefully things will settle down. And, you know, I think if Gary was here, he would say something about the fact that it also touches on the fact that there isn't the one way we do projects within Hyperledia and maybe it's detrimental to the project overall and something that TSE could try to improve is giving some guidance and maybe, you know, how strongly we want to word that, I don't know. But, you know, whether we enforce that or not is there a template model on how you're supposed to run a project, where your documentation is, how you do your CI, et cetera, et cetera. But, you know, it's clear that there is a lot of diversity today on that front for better and for worse. So that is a project that David Hughesby and I are working on right now. The answers to those, what are the potential answers to those questions? So it is top of mind for the community architect team. One of the, you know, side effects of this part of this comes out of the CI CD task force that we had for a while. And part of this is driven by the fabric family of projects moving out of Garrett and Jenkins into GitHub and question marks. So, you know, we're kind of trying to take advantage of this flux to hopefully in the next few weeks be able to come back with some answers or some options as to like where should the docs go? Where should this, that and the other? So we're working on some of the mechanical stuff. Hopefully we all have something to tell you about that in a little while. All right, that's great. Thank you. Okay. So back to the reports. I do want to point out, I didn't see a report from Ursa, which I think is due. And for that matter, I haven't seen the Q2 report from Ursa either, which I would expect. But I was wondering if anybody is on the hook there to actually produce a report sooner rather than later. I want the hook and I'll get it next week. All right. Excellent. Thank you. Okay. So that's the end of the formal agenda. I don't know if there's anything else anybody wants to bring up. Meek, if I can put you on the spot, how are we doing on the working group? Task Force. Are you on mute? You're on mute. Maybe. Sorry. I think we've got a couple of the proposals written up. The first one seems to be kind of at this point universally accepted. But Hart and I need to sit down and figure out what's the next round. Okay. But so are you planning to bring something to the TSE? Soon? I don't know what soon means, but possibly. I'm just trying to get a sense of, you know, I was hoping you'd be able to do a bit like we did for the life cycle task force where we didn't, we tried to break it down to some smaller issues and we were able to bring those up to the TSE and make progress that way more. Yeah. And I think we do, but I think there's a, the problem is, is that this is spaghetti. The sort of interdependencies are pretty substantial. So having some sense of what, how all the pieces went together. I mean, the, the short of it is, um, I think where the consensus is for those who have made the comments back is that, um, working groups should go away. We should have task forces and SIGs and leave it at that. Okay. All right. Thank you. That's good enough. And since I put me on the spot, I should follow my own sort regarding the sub projects issue related to the life cycle task force. That's the last issue, but it's admit, you know, admittedly, I think it's the hardest one to tackle. And I have not made progress. As you can imagine life has taken some direction that has kept me busy. And, um, so I just didn't have any chance to focus on that. So hopefully I will sooner rather than later. Regarding the backlog, as I mentioned earlier, we have a whole bunch of issues that have been raised there. And I have been, I'm happy to see that there's this ongoing discussions on several of those items. I just want to encourage people to keep discussing this. Hopefully we'll get a sense that, you know, the discussion kind of converges enough at some point that we can bring this to the TSE again, following the same principle of trying to take those peace deal right one at a time and make progress that way. So unless there's anybody else who has anything else, I'm happy to close with a few minutes to spare. I don't know. Sorry, this is Angela. Maybe I just to just to check because maybe I missed it. So we are not going to vote today for the expansion of the program committee size, the technical committee size. That's correct because there are discussions. So this refers to the backlog that's in front of you right now for everybody called TSE size because I think, you know, and Chris brought that up to be clear before the election and the election results, right? So I don't want people to get the idea that this is in reaction to the results that, you know, some might find unpleasant or not to their liking, but there are discussions about how we should extend it, right? And in particular, do we just do a numerical extension and take the next people on the list like I had suggested, or do we try to be more subtle to ensure that we have greater diversity by hand picking some people or there are different possibilities. And so at this point I don't feel like there is a clear, you know, consensus on a specific proposal that makes sense to bring to the TSE for final vote. So I just want to encourage people to participate in the discussion and then hopefully we can converge very quickly. So that maybe next week or the following one or so, we can agree on something. And to be clear, anyone can participate in these calls in the online discussions. You do not have to be a TSE member. Yeah, that's a good point, you know, and I will add that to what I just said before, but the results, you know, people get hang up on the result and whether there's enough diversity and all. I don't know what it's like not to be a member because I've been a member officially since the first election, but, you know, I think we've been quite inclusive and I've never heard anybody being shut off. And so at the end of the day, the votes, if you look at the history of the TSE votes for better and for worse, they are quite similar in nature. It's like for the most part unanimous consent. And I don't know that they make much of a difference per se as much as the discussion that goes on in which, as Mark says, you know, anybody can participate in. So, all right. All right. So thank you all for participating and we'll talk to you soon. Meeting is adjourned.