 Welcome everyone to the March 24th hyperledger technical student committee call. As you are all aware, you've been on this call before there's two things that you must divide by the first is the antitrust policy notice which is currently displayed on the screen. And the second is the code of conduct, which is linked in our agenda. So, first off, we'll start with the announcements as always the deaf weekly developer newsletter goes out each Friday. If you have anything that you'd like to make sure gets included in that please leave a comment on the wiki page that is linked in the agenda. And the second thing is the hyperledger global forum. The CFPs are still open. They close on April 29. If you would like to talk at the hyperledger global forum, please submit your CFP for consideration. Any other announcements that anybody would like to make. Okay, so with no announcements. The first thing that we have are the project reports. The hyperledger Ursa came in. I see that most of us have reviewed that. I think there's only three missing checkmarks there in the report. Everyone I did see a comment so hopefully Cam will see that as well. It's a good comment as far as trying to get additional projects using the cryptographic libraries. Just helping people really understand how they might bring those into their projects. Are there any other questions or comments on hyperledger Ursa anything that anybody feels they we should be concerned about or any additional comments there. All right, so with that then hyperledger caliper did come in earlier this week. I did see showing up in my inbox today a base to report that is also come in so we will be able to review those next week on their regularly scheduled time. The the caliper one doesn't have everybody having taken a look at it yet and we're probably about halfway there. And I personally haven't opened the basic one yet so I have no idea where we're at with that one. It's still really early here for me in the morning. So I think with the project reports the only other thing that we've got is the outstanding hyperledger explore quarterly report that was due two weeks ago. Any other comments on the project reports at this point. Okay. So the next item on our agenda is a vote. So the vote is for the mentorship project selection recommendations that came in from the task force. Those recommendations picked the different projects that they thought they basically did a ranking for each of them. As far as whether or not they met the criteria. There are the ones that are listed here recommend it for approval. The only comment I saw come through on chat was from Arun related to the three that basically ended up in a three way tie. I kind of did a tiebreaker and picked one of those. Arun thought maybe I should have picked another one. I provide reasons in chat as to why I picked the one that I did. And looking at their. I guess that you're okay with that. Is that correct? Or I think those are fair points, but I guess we can, I mean, if we are allowed to probably we can ask them to edit and make corrections. But otherwise I'm fine with the decision. So let's hear what others think if nobody has any other questions, then I'm fine with it. Okay. Did anybody else have any other comments on the, the task force recommendations. So this is all jumping. I mean, so my understanding is there is only so many you can approve anyway, right? That's right. That's right. So I, I'm just thinking of what Arun was talking about, you know, there's not much point to me it seems to ask them to edit if we already had max capacity. And we're going to have to, we're going to have to reject one or the other. Yes. So, I can't remember what were the exact numbers of proposals that we got in and how many we could accept. Yeah, I think we received about 38, maybe 38, 39 I have to do my count again. But we need to select 28. We need to, to put on LFX mentorship platform. So that high pleasure foundation can provide the funding for the selected mentees for those 20 mentorship projects. So yes we did receive more than we have funding for. So the task force kind of did a scoring. I think the process went pretty smoothly. There was, as Tracy mentioned, three projects kind of ended up in a tie kind of the last, you know, we need the 27 are pretty clear, you know, winners. That should be selected but the nursery they scored exactly the same and we need to pick one out of those three. So you pick the enable Kubernetes operators support for Fablo. But I think around you kind of felt like maybe the supply chain certification solution to track tracing efficiently certified liquid food grade and dairy transportation sorry it's a long title. I saw you had a comment a few comments back and forth with the person who proposed this project. I'm not sure. Yeah, so I guess just really just asking kind of the TSC sounds at Tracy you using the coup enable Kubernetes is, you know, has clear learning outcome it's it's a sort of better defined for mentee to work on it within that kind of defined mentorship program period, maybe the supply chain one is a little bit, maybe, maybe I'll let our room speak to it I don't know all the you know technical details. Okay, I think I can repeat what why I felt that project could be supported, or why that proposal could be supported I saw some similarities in the proposal to what grid already does to some extent and when I commented about great project pointed them to the documentation. It felt like they needed a project like that and they wanted to propose a project something like that. And in one of the great proposals I had seen they're requesting for additional participation from the community. They're looking for more contribution. So felt that this could be a way they can increase their shares of participants. There is nothing against any project as such, but for me in terms of ranking probably fablo would go in the second preference. On the only reason being there are other projects, which does something similar to that already. So I'll add to that because I when I read the comment on the supply chain one, I felt very much like it was we already are using fabric so we're going to continue to use fabric, which implied to me that grid was out of scope there. And I guess, you know, like I said, the learning objectives and then the scope of the project was really unclear for that versus it was extremely clear in the enabled communities operators support for fablo. And definitely felt like it could could have a good opportunity to be successful. Yeah, I know. Yeah, I was wondering I mean, you know I was looking earlier actually at this the supply chain one and it's struck me that this is very business oriented they actually have a platform they already talking about customers bringing more customers do we have any kind of policy with that to this. I mean, the bottom line is to me, they're really trying to advance their own business. And it kind of turned me off a little bit to be completely fair. But I don't know if this is, you know, this is true for a lot of the, the internship we have or is that fairly unique. I think it's fairly unique in that the other projects, at least the ones that I looked at seemed more focused on improving, improving the projects themselves. I think there are some in there that are obviously focused on particular use cases. If you will, right from the six. There's more like the climate climate use cases and those sorts of things, carbon accounting, you know, but they're still, I think, somewhat focused on the projects themselves. Okay, so so that's my impression to so you're confirming this so on that base, you know for me that really plays against the supply chain thing which is really an application that they clearly are, you know, trying to build a business around. So, I think we should favor more open source projects than that, you know, might second this. Any other comments or concerns about any of the projects that were selected or recommended. If nobody has concerns I think I would like to call this to a vote. We have enough people to do that. Is that correct. Sean, do we have enough for a quorum. Sorry, I couldn't find my mute button. Yeah, we've got. I'm going to say nine to 14. We've got 10 out of the 11 available TSC members are on the call other three that they couldn't make it so we've 10 out of 11. All right, so let's any objections to take this to a vote. And if there are no objections, is anyone want to make a motion. Second. I think that was a Peter and Dano motion second together. If I got that right. Okay. So, yeah, right you just want to take us through a vote, not necessarily person by person but just a game. Sure. The matter before the TSC is to approve the slate of 2022 internship projects. And everyone who is against this motion, please. Say nay. Anyone that would like to abstain from this vote. And all those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Motion passes. Okay. Thanks everyone. All right, so the next item on our agenda to say I just want to say quick thank you. So yes, thank you I'm very excited so I'll be in touch with the mentors who proposed those projects and got selected and you know well I'll be talking to them about the next steps and I just want to say a big thank you to Angelo, Dano, Kimlish and Peter and Tracy, of course, who served on the, the task force to help us review and score the projects really appreciate your help. Yeah, thanks. And yes, thanks to the folks who took the time to go through them and help us out in selecting that. All right, so the next item on the agenda just went to do is because we obviously had task force update from the mentorship project selection I wanted to do a quick update a room from the security task force see how it's going and see if there's anything that the TSC can do to help in that Short raising and thanks and there's definitely ways in which we can improve the engagement in the task force, at least in the security task force. So there has been good, good participation in the past and where we are probably lagging is taking up the actions that are coming out of those meetings. I don't know how to improve that case. However, there is good participation at least during the meetings and quick updates on what's happening within the task force they initially the discussions were unclear as to what exactly to be focused on. So the initial couple of conversations or meetings were purely into which area of security or what should be the scope of the task force identifying the areas that we should tackle. This is how the initial couple of meetings were went into and then once we decided to focus on. So we took references from open SSF as well as we took references that were coming in, in terms of, for instance, Dano shared on one of the call on how a vulnerability is reported in Bezo and how it was scored against. So those points were discussed and then there was open question that was brought up on how do we measure vulnerability for a blockchain project given that most of the projects and I pleasure our blockchain technologies or multi party systems. And eventually, the task force decided that the scope is scope of the task force itself could be much bigger so we need to break them down into work streams and eventually even to begin with work streams. We decided to go with writing down a paper, starting with identifying the threats and areas, I mean, broad areas under which those threats could occur and thanks to heart for, I think, most of the effort. And thanks to all the participants so far. So at present, where we would like to have your participation and the task force is to identify the threats continue identifying those threats. And once, let's say we discuss those threats in one of our meetings. We can start putting down a mitigation strategy for each of those threats or maybe start thinking towards the next steps. It could lead us to multiple smaller work streams and we could decide on how to take it further, or maybe break down break down the task force itself, so that it can deliver something at the end of every month or every three weeks. Sorry, everyone in the months right. So that's the brief update about task force and what's happening at the task force. Any questions for everyone. So there is. Sorry, Dan. How did you want to speak up. Oh yeah I was just going to point people to the GitHub that we've been working in, which I will post in the chat. I was about to say the same thing so there is a channel under TSC. You can look for security iPhone task force. Let me find a repository that I started to put it. So that's where all the contributions are going in currently. And I was going to actually ask. Would it be, what does the TSC think about task forces having a repository. Because I've been just putting this in my GitHub, which is totally fine. But some people might prefer to have it in a hyperledger GitHub. I do not have a problem with posting it under the official. Anyone else. I feel the same, I guess. So, can we talk maybe about logistics so how would people feel about if we had a a folder, like, task forces right so get hub. com slash hyperledger slash. I don't know, I don't know how we want to lay it out we probably don't want like a top level folder but just some folder where various task forces can have GitHub space. The issue is, the issue is, this is like, there are, there's no nesting. So, if you want to go that route, I would just create a new org called I don't know hyperledger task forces or something. I think it would probably be better to just, you know, prefix the, the repo name with like, I don't know tf dash some damn thing or another, and just allow people to sort like that because we don't really it's not like, we don't get folders. Okay, yeah, no that that that makes total sense that's probably the best way to do it. I think that, you know, there's there's a couple different ways to purchase I know the chat task force did things on the wiki up till now I think most of our task forces have done stuff on the wiki. So I think that, you know, in this particular case with the security task force, there's been the desire to use GitHub because of the format that you're using for the paper that you guys are writing. So, I think it's, you know, maybe, maybe it depends to on the task force as far as what they really need as to whether or not they need to get a repo or not. Absolutely, they may not need it. And that actually, I mean, we could have a task force repo, and then have the individual projects, you know, have folders within that repo and just, you know, ask people to only merge the stuff in the part of the repo that they care about that would also work. But any other things on logistics, I think that the reason that I wanted a room to give this update is I think it's going to be important as we think about how we want to approach task force. Task forces in the future. Right. We're starting to move that direction. And I think that a room in the people who have been participating on the security task force have found some challenges that they've are addressing, right, around making sure that you know exactly what you're working on, making sure that the task are small enough to complete, right, which is why the kind of breaking it down into sub task if you will. The other one is that task forces are not just about attending the meeting. They're about doing things offline and making sure that there's progress being made in in some way shape or form between those meetings. And so, you know, as we approach these task forces that were were starting to kick off, we need to be keeping those things in mind. So that we don't run into some more problems that other task forces have. Okay, no additional thoughts on that before we move on to the next topic. I mean, I see some of the task forces do have this task forces would be beneficial, especially on the ones the ones that that would matter for rest of the projects, if there are more participants from those project teams, if they are joining in those task force right. And the chat task force was successful because I guess everybody were involved in pushing information out of the task force and then sharing it across in different forums, collecting feedback from different project teams. So that I guess that kind of participation may not be possible all the time. Is there any suggestion on how do we get those project teams get involved into these task force? Anybody have any suggestions? My question would be today know about the task forces. If they do, then I would assume that if they think they have a reason to be there, give that interest to represent them. But if they if you're not even sure if they are there, then that's probably the first problem to fix. I think another concern is, even if they're aware is it something they want to do because we have a lot of maintainers in some of these projects that are low level that don't necessarily want to move, you know, quote unquote up the chain to deal with hyperledger wide issues. Some of them do some of them don't we should you know make it available make it known to them. But it's just like the, the maintainer acquisition funnel you got people who are using it people are contributing it and not everyone who contributes want to maintain it. And I think similarly it's not everyone who maintains a project necessarily wants to get involved in what is basically leadership tasks for the entire hyperledger org. And they might view that as a task force but on the other hand, task force participation can be a very low thing because it's not a high commitment that like attending a TSC meeting every week would be there's a problem that they are the experts in so I think on the other hand of that point, we should encourage people to join these task forces don't require the same level of commitment, especially when they have domain specific knowledge will be very helpful in some of these task forces. Thanks Peter. Any, any other comments heart you came off you were gonna say something. You are really observant Tracy. Yeah, I was just going to say I think this highly depends on the task force. Some of the task forces require a lot of domain specific knowledge some of them don't. So, so I'm not sure there's a one size fits all solution for all of this. I think the best way to. You know, one of the best ways to get people interested in task forces are to give them teeth. So if people think that they're going to be affected by a task force. There's a lot more incentive to join. You know, sort of the performance and scale working group is a classic example of this when it had teeth tons of people joined and as soon as it's a sensible mission was over. Not so many people joined. And the other thing is, is, you know, I guess, just make the task forces things that people want to work on and, and, you know, for some of these we need to need to recruit more domain specific experts. I would say having a good, good description of what these task forces are right why why are these task forces important. What is it that they're attempting to accomplish what are the deliverables that they're working on. All of the things that we do have in our task force guidelines. That should probably be the very first thing that we work on. We have proposed these task forces the ones that we're talking about today as well as the security task force. Within the, within the TSC meetings, and they haven't necessarily got themselves to document kind of that introduction the background why we're doing this. What are we working on. What are we looking to complete the task by. So I think that's another piece of advertising right as I believe it was Peter said, right, getting people to know that these task force exists, start with documenting what these task force are. So that's probably the other piece of that that we could look at. Okay, so let's then talk about the email that I sent to the TSC mailing list of which one person responded. The poll that has been in the TSC agenda of which five people I believe have voted. I'd like to vote on this of how do you want to approach these task force meetings. And so in the in discord, I'm going to put a link to the agenda so that you guys can go in and select the option that you think is the best approach for task force meetings. So that we can decide how we want to handle these moving forward. And yes, that was me nicely calling you all out for not responding to my email. I'm feeling lonely guys I guess it's the problem. I did respond to the poll. Yes, there are, there are, yes, you have responded if you go into the agenda and you see that there's some numbers there are some percentages. And we voted for it. So, and Peter, I did see your vote coming. Yes. And we could vote for only one right we can't just check all the ones we like. That's right. Favorite one because otherwise we were probably going to end up with all of them being our favorite. And then we wouldn't come to a conclusion, which I would like to see we can come to some sort of conclusion there. All right, so it looks like we now have 10 votes in, which is still not everybody who's on the call. I know because of the fact that a couple of people who are not on the call actually voted. So if you have yet to vote, please do so. Tracy, do you want non TSC members to vote. If you are going to participate in the task force and do you think that's important. Yes, definitely go ahead. All right, thank you. Sorry to interrupt you. No, no, no, no, no problem. All right. So, with that, we do have quite the spread. All of them got at least one vote, which I guess is interesting and important for us to know. And the one that got the four votes is the post one TSC call per month and you see other weeks to rotate between the task force topics. And then all of them except for the continue to use a separate time slot for hosting task force calls got two votes. So we're really very split on how we'd like to process going forward. Anyone want to talk about why they voted for the one that they did. Yeah, go ahead. I'm sorry. I was having a back to zoom. Okay, so I did not vote for the most popular option. And I have to admit, it surprises me a little bit that most people favor this because it seems to me that, you know, where basically means we would skip three calls from the current schedule, reduce like the 25% that's a drastic change. And it's not like, look, we're already almost past the hour. And it's not like we're lacking, you know, topics to discuss of those goals. So I would be worried that this is a bit too extreme. And I'd be interested to hear from people how they see this working out. And by the way, I selected one of the other one, the bi-weekly, I forget which one, but Okay, that's, that's great. Thank you for bringing up Nathan, which one did you vote for? I voted for the one of the standard TSC call for the first 30 minutes and then the breakout rooms afterwards, so I must admit that a lot of these options are more or less equivalent to me in the sense that I agree with Arno that often the TSC topics need to be timely, meaning it's more helpful for us to be able to discuss project issues when they haven't gone for a few months before they get brought up. And so I like the idea that there's a TSC call at least bi-weekly. I also think that for the task forces to keep their momentum, we often have to meet often enough that people feel like they get an assignment and they need to do it right away before it gets buried in their task list of other things so that there's a way of getting things done and having some accountability on a regular cadence, which is why I in particular I picked the breakout rooms, even though I think a lot of us would like to participate in all the different things we might have the task forces for, or at least be able to follow along on the calls. I think that if we make either the TSC only meet once a month or the task forces only meet once a month, we're not likely to make the kind of progress we hope to make. Okay. Good point, Peter. So the first assumption I made was that if we make a choice and then we try it for a month or two and then we end up being unhappy with it, then we can just go back to a different one or how it were, no shame, sort of just trying it out. And the reason I voted for the one that's popular is because I am curious to see if it would increase efficiency in the sense that the chat and the mailing list would maybe get more usage because we would only have the main meeting once a month and then the task forces will be focused. So I would expect the task force meetings of the month to be getting more done than big meetings and at the same time, because people only meet once a month for the big meeting, I would expect communication to continue on and to be more lively than it is now in the mailing list and the chat. So that's kind of my experiment. And I'm totally not afraid to just come back here a month or two later and be like, Oh, maybe that did not work. Bobby. Yeah, I voted for the alternate week hosting the topics during the TSC call, because that way then the TSC is involved in all the task force and gets the information on a timely manner and if one task force is accelerating and needs to discuss more, you know, that's something that can take up more time in that half hour for that task force that week so that each one gets their point to what they're working on out to the TSC. Okay. So you're gonna help me. I like the five of the first six options were somehow during the TSC call we get some aspect of the task force in. But another thing I noticed is if you group by TSC call frequency, you get four votes each four votes for once a month, four votes for biweekly and four votes for weekly. And where those other two break down is whether they want to break that room or regular room. So, I think this is like, it may look like the plurality is voting for once a month but I think there's really no consensus on, on a frequency right now. Okay. I stand up for digging in and looking at that more detail. Just some good information. Dave. I had to drop out of the last call so I couldn't talk about I guess when we brainstorm the options, but my preferred approach would be kind of a hybrid of several of these where we have a combination of breakouts. So people make progress on a task force on a regular cadence, and then report back to the TSC maybe that's in like the 30 minute section of the TSC. But I think that's kind of a hybrid that it's not one of these options encapsulated kind of what I had in my mind about how task forces would work in breakout sessions and then come back to the TSC with their findings, and then additional discussion. Okay. That's a different way of looking at it. Yeah, I think most of the points I was thinking about have already been said. I think if we look at the kind of the breakdown right now it looks like people are leaning towards splitting between the TSC call and the task force topic kind of evenly. If that's the second, third, fourth and fifth topics or votes in here. So yeah, I would guess that we really shouldn't say that the first one has the most votes right now. I think there is a pretty even split and the points about, you know, waiting a full month between meetings would seem like you lose momentum so I kind of feel those are good points. Okay. Hi. Thanks. One thing that worries me about to infrequent meetings. And I put this in chat is if we have topics that take a long time for discussion. So maybe some of you remember how long it took, say for the the firefly proposal to be discussed. Now imagine we do that instead of once a week we do that once a month right it would literally take us years to to approve projects in this case. So I'm not sure that sort of once a month is is always enough, you know, maybe it's enough in the aggregate on the average. But I think we need to make sure that when topics like that come up, you know, we need to have have time to discuss them. And Peter I don't know if you saw my comment and discord either. But I really appreciate your optimism that less frequent meetings will cause people to engage more. But I'm not optimistic about that and it's someone who tends to procrastinate myself. I think deadlines are a good thing. Okay. So thank you all for that. The Yes, the challenge that I see is we have a limited time. We have one hour each week to talk about things be them TSC topics and or task topics task force topics if we decide to put task forces in with the TSC meeting which I think all except one of us lean towards yeah let's use part of the TSC meeting in some way shape or form for task forces. So my concern is an hour is actually not a long time for the amount of discussion I think is going to be required, especially if we're saying okay, it's only going to be 30 minutes or it's going to be part of the hour. If we think about what Dave suggested right where we have the opportunity report back on, you know, a discussion that happened. And so this this is, I think, leading to the concern that I think we all kind of have is how do we ensure we're making progress and moving forward in accomplishing what is being said and done in the task force. So, Peter, if you brought your hand up I don't know if something I said there. Maybe you put your hand up but happy to have you add to this. No, it was just, I was just going to add to our said. Sorry. That's okay. That's okay. I was actually saw your hand and I also saw the message set hard put in the discord, which is I think my preferred approach would be to use on the fly TSC slash task force scheduling. So, yeah, I, I guess, go ahead, Peter, I'm going to, I'm going to let you go and then I'm going to make a suggestion about maybe how we proceed forward. Yeah, so I read the chat just now. By, I can definitely see those points wrong. So I'm not hell bent on the vote that I made. And I guess one thing that I may have thought of differently is the level of dynamism that you'd have with creating like spinning up new task forces, I four of it. In a way that anything and everything that we would normally do and the regular meeting can be can and will be spun off into a separate task force and then there will be people accountable for working on that. Specifically, instead of just, you know, being able to be in the big pool with everyone and sort of not really participate as much as if you go on the task force. And when I imagine this way that every single task that we have in the big meeting is actually now taken care of by task force. And that's why I envision that communication would be faster because people will feel a little more pressure engage on account of them actually being on the task force instead of just being on the TSC that has a lot of topics to discuss and then some can be engaged in some. People can be engaged in but some just won't. I'm not sure if I'm making a point perfectly clearly but that's how I was imagining it and I'm now seeing that maybe that's this dynamism of the task forces maybe I overestimate how much they're planning this maybe. It's a little more overhead to form a task force and then some tasks will just not get taken care of because of the overhead of creating a new task force for it. So I'm totally open to talking more about that specific part as well. Okay, yeah, here. I think both times that you've talked what I've heard from you is, you're looking to try and figure out how to get more engagement. More participation in the way that we communicate be via email or meetings or participating in these task forces and I think that's definitely the thing that I'm for as well. You know it's part of why I took us a step back a couple weeks ago and said like what what do we need to do differently and I think that's where this task force idea came from and is the hope that we will engage more. We will participate more in the discussions and you know move things forward or no. Yeah, quickly, I just wanted to point out, you can change your vote. Yes. At the bottom, it says undo. You see your vote and it says undo so maybe there are people want to update their thoughts. You'll be interesting. Yes, I think that's a good point. I don't know and I saw me, Nathan, you had commented. Maybe we should refute. That's perfectly fine. Right. Feel free. If you think that based on the conversation that we've had, you would like to change your vote. Please do an undo and recast your vote for one of the other options based on the discussion that you've heard. So I'll give us all a moment to decide if we want to undo and if we would like to do something different here. And then there don't have any trouble. I am seeing some changes happening as we go through here. So I will give us all just a moment to make sure that we can get ourselves logged on and in a place where we can get ourselves changing our votes if we think we want to change our votes. And there's no need to change your votes. I think that's the one that you picked. That's fine. Anybody need more time. I do. Sorry. No, that's okay. Let us know Peter when you're at a place that you think you're good. It seems we have a new winner regardless. Right. That's exactly right. So far we've got eight votes. Eight votes are for the use the TSC call to discuss standard business for the first 30 minutes and the second 30 minutes to discuss task force topics on a rotational basis. And I think what's unsaid in that is that the task forces have their own meetings separately and make progress on their own separately right. I would definitely think if not meetings on their own communication and work towards whatever that deliverable is in the timeframe between their opportunities to talk. Yes. All right. So let's let's take that approach for at least a month or so see how it goes. Maybe a couple months to get us through the task forces. Maybe a couple of times at least and see if we decide that it's not working. We need to make a change. We can go ahead and do that. We're not locked into anything here. So, with that, before we move out of the meeting, I have one last thing to discuss here. The task force chair selection. I did put names next to each of the task forces that we had talked about previously. I know I've talked to Dan about the first one. What projects are we missing with paper ledger and Dan. Oh, you're still good with that. I'm going to take the chair and driving that forward. Yes. Okay. And I was going to take the project families website revamp and help us drive that one forward. Arno, you had suggested last week I think in chat that you were going to put together a PR, but I did put your name against that particular task force. Are you good with that. Yes, absolutely. And then Jim's not here, but we'll see if we can get Jim to agree to chair and need the project help dashboards as we move forward. So I think just last item is if nobody has any objections to this I'd like to proceed with next week doing the first 30 minutes for standard to see business and then the second 30 minutes with starting in the order that we have them listed. So we're missing within hyper ledger as our first topic for the second 30 minutes and then the following week will be the project families and so on and so forth. Any objections. Hart was that a yes or no. That was a sounds great Tracy and then I realized you asked for objections. It's all good. Thanks Hart. Do we have any way to sign up for a task force or I know we talked about, you know wanting people to take part to participate in at least one of them. Do we have a way to formalize that or just reach out to the chair. Did we create cat rooms and discord and if you're interested poking and say hi with that work. Okay. Any other business today, but anybody would like to discuss. Nobody coming off mute everything raising their hands I will take that as I know, and I will then conclude the call, and we will talk to you again next week. Thanks a lot Tracy. Bye everybody.