 The registration for the hack fest. We can start with that. Um, can I see the agenda again? Yep. Um, okay. So morning, everybody afternoon. Good evening. Um, so on the agenda today, we have our update on the hack fest. We have. Finalized everything and the registration is up. Um, we are going to cancel the November 9th meeting because that conflicts with the Hyperledger member summit where many of us are going to be in Singapore. Um, and so we are going to cancel the notes, which means we actually have to move. Um, I think it was the composer update, um, uh, to, and we'll probably double that up on the 16th. We have a proposal, um, that was sent out to the mailing list for Project Cicero. Is somebody going to be on to discuss that? Yeah, this is going to be on Shadab. I'm happy to discuss. Great. Thanks. Um, yeah, uh, we have the training and education working group proposal that we discussed in the past and now that Tracy is hopefully back from her travels, we can resume the discussion and then finally we have project reporting from the Sawtooth project and next week will be a Roja. So any other items for the agenda, if not, okay, Todd, why don't we kick it off? All right, sounds good. Hackfest is finalized December 5th and 6th in Lisbon. I am dropping the registration link into the chat window right now. Thank you for your patience in, uh, while we were getting that sorted out, uh, we are excited to see everyone there for the final Hackfest of the year. Uh, and as always, we have a draft agenda, so dropping the link in, uh, as well. If there are topics you want to see get covered, things you want to hack on discussions you want to have, uh, etc. Please drop those topics into the agenda. We'll sort that out in unconference format on the beginning of day one of the Hackfest. Any, go ahead. Just as a reminder, I think, again, we're, we're trending. We want to trend towards more hacking, less yacking, but we recognize that there is, there is a need. So we're probably going to try and, um, and do the, you know, the morning might be hacking in the afternoon, hacking or vice versa. Sounds good. Uh, any questions on Lisbon Hackfest? All right, sounds good. Okay. So, and again, because we're going to cancel the 9th Thursday, the 9th, because of a member summit. Um, okay. So next one. Right. Jonathan, was that? Yeah, no, I think the tone is already, uh, constantly, right? Those, like yesterday. Yeah, I canceled out the meeting invite more just a heads up. So people that may have not been subscribed on that call invite. Gotcha. Okay. We want to, um, go over the, uh, Cicero proposal. Yeah, absolutely. Thank you everybody, uh, for the opportunity here. Basically, we, um, we recently submitted a proposal for, um, Cicero, which is on a very high level. Um, a, a technical, it's supposed to be a, I have a ledger project, a top level project and whose purpose is to, uh, make big, basically executable smart legal contracts. And it basically will be a open source implementation of, uh, the Accord protocol, which is a protocol for the legal aspects, uh, again, smart contracts, um, that we are developing here at the Accord project. I'm happy to go into more detail. Um, but that's just the sort of, uh, I guess introduction. Sure. You want to tell us a little bit more about the Accord? Well, at a time, so, I think you were first. Okay. So I'll jump in. So the, the protocol, where is it? Because I've kind of tried to follow links and I go through the Accord project website. And is there a draft somewhere or what's the status? Yeah, the, the protocol status itself, uh, is in development. And there's a draft you can point us to. Uh, at the moment we have, um, you know, we do have, we have, we have code and draft. We can point you to, we have some links that are provided, um, in the proposal. Um, I can follow up with you on that aspect. Yeah. Because I mean, obviously, you know, you say, Hey, let's implement this protocol. If we don't know what the protocol is like, it's a bit difficult to judge. I mean, on, on the surface, sounds like a good idea. And, you know, it's something we're not quite, it's a higher level of the kind of things we've been doing so far, from what I understand, which sounds interesting. But I would like to see a little bit because otherwise, I don't know what the plan really is, is there some kind of, you know, you implementing and developing the standard, those protocol at the same time in parallel or is one before the other in case of conflict, which one prevails? That's the kind of question I'm trying to get to. Sure. The stand, I mean, the protocol is meant to implement the standards. But, um, yeah, I can provide you with more detail, uh, in that respect as well. That would be useful. Thank you. Yeah, similar comments from me, uh, Jonathan, basically it's going to be very interesting to see, uh, actually crucial to see how can we use it, reuse it, how useful it is and kind of what is the initial or immediate utilization of such a project, right? It's very clear to me what composer does. It's very clear to me what, you know, uh, cello does. So maybe something like that, but we can show, Hey, you know, there'll be like a lot of legally binding contracts that people can use. And we have a stack and some stuff that is kind of ready to go. Thank you solution. You can just use the code protocol and with this implementation or the kind of blockchain smart contracts can not, like one needs to reinvent right? So just to understand the utility of this or how, what was the edit value for, for the entire hyperlegion project in, in, in the context? Hi, this is a weapon, um, one, um, you know, I have, I wasn't the accord project to launch and I spoke on behalf of hyperlegion over there. Um, but we, we do know that there are a couple of existing initiatives in this, uh, in this space. One is the is the initiative for the swaps. I don't know how far they have come in terms of defining a protocol itself, uh, but they have been working on this for, for a while. And then there's of course, uh, Leigh brains work in this, uh, area. And then there are other people who are working like, I think there is, um, another project, uh, incubated inside, uh, MIT is W3C or something like that, which is working on this as well. So it might be useful to, um, uh, build up this common ground using all these initiatives that are aiming to do something similar. Yeah, that certainly is a goal of ours is not to, uh, create another splinter modeling language or, or approach, uh, I suspect, you know, our approach is to be a bit more higher level than those. So it wouldn't necessarily, um, like those approaches, at least there is this one that I'm familiar with, uh, be tied to a nest, a specific domain, such as derivatives. But, but we can clarify that as well, certainly. So can I just ask a high order question on this? Um, and, and I just saw the proposal yesterday, so I haven't had a chance to go through it in any detail yet. But, um, what is it? Um, is it a module? Is your expectation this is a module that others would plug into existing ledgers? Um, is it, um, a standalone system? Sorry. Um, that's a truck. Yeah, that was a, that was actually was a bus, but yeah. So what is it? Yeah, it is, it's, um, it is a modeling language or a module that could be plugged into other systems. Or, you know, if you, I guess you could describe it as others would plug into this, but it includes, uh, the legal specific, um, aspects of a language that captures, uh, smart contract, uh, smart contract activities or, or the execution of scripts that relate to the terms and conditions of sort of contracts, generally speaking. It's like a higher level. So it adds, um, that would then compile down to, um, chain code, uh, or, or other, you know, uh, implementation specific smart contract language. Right. Well, that was going to be my next question. How is the mapping done? Do you anticipate there's like a one time translation and then you run this like in the native smart contract type of thing? Or do you expect this to be driving the smart contract mechanism of the, the framework you're building on? I don't, I don't think it's necessarily tied to either, but it would be generally a one time sort of, uh, compilation down to a particular, uh, reference architecture or implementation. Okay. I like to call out to composer in the fact that, um, Dan, from composer is, is, uh, uh, throwing in the, oh wait, is he also the CTO for clause? For clause. Sorry. Yeah. Dan Thelman. Right. Okay. So there's a, a close tie to hyper ledger composer, but not exclusive. It looks like, you know, just, this is a way of boot, helping bootstrap. That's correct. Hi, this is a guard from, from trade shift. Super interesting, um, you know, uh, to, to be working with, with formalizing legal contracts, um, a question about the Accord, um, uh, kind of organization. Um, so the protocol to be, um, to be created there. Uh, it was not clear to me how, how it will be created, you know, what, what's the opportunities for participation? You know, what, what is, what is the governance around this, uh, the, the Accord effort? Just, just in a few words. Sure. We need a project as a, as a nonprofit, uh, organization, a consortium where it's a membership organization where we are incorporating, uh, it's quite open and incorporate the views of the variety of, uh, members and type of stakeholders and lawyers and technologists. So all there, all that type of, uh, participation would feed into the protocol as a way. Hi, this is Bahua, uh, let me ask a question. So, uh, technically, is there any special requirements to implement a legal, uh, contract using a blockchain smart contract? So, uh, what, what's the major technical challenge there? Can you clarify what you mean by requirements? I mean, uh, we know we can implement, implement, uh, those business contracts, uh, amount, um, various, uh, scenarios. So I'm not, I'm not familiar with those, uh, legal contracts. So I want to know if there are some, uh, special demand. Yeah, certainly. I mean, there's just by the nature of the domain itself, there are specific requirements that would need to be implemented even at the highest abstract level. So what, what kind of technical challenge there? So you, I guess it's not that different compared to other scenarios, right? Yeah, in principle, there, there's the wide, I mean, there are, there are unique challenges for the legal aspects of this, but there are also common challenges to this approach as well that, um, include, you know, just compiling down to different types of distributed ledgers, languages, uh, compatibility and so forth. But, um, there are some unique aspects that we're, you know, that's the sort of purpose of the projects is to solve the legal issues, uh, surrounding smart contracts. Let me try to ask a follow up on Bower's question. I mean, do you expect this will drive extensions to the framework you're going to build on? Like in case of Composer, I know that as part of this is very familiar with Composer. Do you, does, is that already driving some additional requirements for Composer and maybe even fabrics? Yes, that's correct. We do plan on adding some additional, um, components or aspects to the existing, um, modeling languages that relate specifically to the legal aspects. So you may have, you know, broad concepts like transaction or asset, um, in one approach, but I'm connecting those to a legally enforceable transaction or a contract and maybe providing for remedies if there is an issue is, is part of what the protocol will be establishing. So you, you want to make the Cicero, uh, focus on the legal contract area or you want to make it a more general? Um, it's, it is for legal, the legal contract area specifically. So I have another question. This is Arno again. I mean, what's the relationship today between the high court and hyperledger? The court is a, an associate member of hyperledger. Okay. As a, as a nonprofit open source organization. All right. That's, that's what I was looking for. Thank you. Yeah, maybe a bit of background. So the core project is a, is a nonprofit, um, consortium that was developed to, that was formed to develop standards specifically for legal contracts. It's, it's technology neutral and, um, and open source. So the purpose is ultimately to take standards that are developed by, uh, lawyers and whether law firm and house counsel and technologists and, and, uh, people in business that deal with contracts, uh, develop the standards, establish them and ultimately implement them in open source software. And Cicero is one sort of, um, implementation of the project as a hyperledger top level project. Who, who, so who else is a member of a court? I'm just curious. Yeah, we have, uh, a wide variety of members, including, um, numerous attorneys, um, larger companies we're getting on boarded, uh, startups. And we are, we, we have partners, partnerships with organizations, existing and pending as well, including the International Association for Contracts and Commercial Management, which is a, a, itself a nonprofit, um, trade association for that, essentially the contract management industry. Um, besides, can you just make the proposal commentable? I see I cannot add any comment there. Okay. Yes. Hey, so I had a question that I put in chat. Um, I think this is a really cool idea, but, uh, what's the reason why you guys want to do this separately from the composer project rather than just kind of have it as a module of composer? Yeah, that's a good question. I mean, I think that there's, there's enough going on here that would warrant a separate project at hyperledger. And I think that, you know, there's enough interest, uh, throughout the community that it would be eventually, um, used by enough people that I think a project makes sense. It also doesn't seem to be defined by being a composer plug-in or module, but, but more one of its ways of being expressed or being supported is through composer. Like it seems like there could be ways to support it in other tooling. Right. That's correct. If you wouldn't mind, I think it would find it helpful if, uh, like in an academic paper where there's a related work section, if there was some way that you could, uh, help describe the Accord project in the context of similar efforts that are out there. I think there's a couple other, um, projects around trying to formalize legal language into coding language. So I think that would help us understand the, the relative merits of building around this approach versus another one. Sure. Happy to do that. Thank you. Yeah. So I, I think, you know, the, the one question that I, you know, have, and I think others pardon me as well is, so how do we get access to this protocol spec? Because I think that's, I think that, that would have to be public before we can really be starting to work on this. Otherwise it's, it's not clear to me how anyone could start to contribute if they didn't actually know what the spec was. Sure. That makes sense. And we'll follow up with that. Are there, I mean, aside from the affinity to composer and the discussion we just had other questions, concerns about potentially incubating this? This, this Brian, I'll say, you know, even though this is earlier than most projects that we've considered for incubation, I think there's upside to it starting life as a hyperledger project versus being brought in later, just that it, it, you know, helps build an even broader stakeholder community, I think. But, but yeah, it has to, I think for us to essentially endorse the standard kind of in a way that the same way we endorse the interletcher standard, we have to have confidence that the process by which that standard is built is, is open enough that, you know, developers who show up on this project can also participate in the development of that standard. I feel like the fact it was named differently, that was the, you know, coming up with Quilt was a minor stroke of genius, I created who that was. I think it was Arnaud or somebody. But I like the fact that Cicero is named differently. So naming police are happy over here. Right. So my question will still be in the also, you know, relate the relationship, I'm still trying to understand in terms of controls. So how much influence can the hyperledger community have over the spec, for instance? What does it take if, you know, I'm a contributor, I joined, I'm excited by the project, I joined the community, but I feel like the spec is not quite right. And I want to comment on the spec and maybe become part of, I mean, what does it take to be a member of this organization, essentially? Yeah, if you're talking about the core project, yeah, we're membership based organization and it's generally open for people to join. And then we have various committees, whether they're sort of subject matter specific or working groups, that is, that can contribute to their sort of pieces of the protocol as as maybe relevant. Then we have sort of more general working groups, like like data standards and so forth, that would apply. Generally, and, and certainly there's room for input either through the core project or through, you know, feedback on Cicero specifically. The hyperledger. But when you say it's open, do you have to be a member to join? I mean, like, you know, hyperledger as membership, but anybody can participate like this course is completely open and all the projects are completely open, whether you're a member or visually or not. Yeah, we needed a further to find that, but it's open in that in that similar fashion as well. OK, thank you. Any other? Yeah, I'll just say that I guess two things. I mean, think I'll re echo Hart's comment that he put in the original message reply, which was it'd be nice to be able to put comments in the proposal because I have, you know, just sort of looking through it in a little more detail. Now I have got several other questions that are specific to that. I think I'd also like to see this in the context of what else is going on out there and I'm still struggling a little bit with exactly what it means to fit into these others. You know, how do how do I how do I conceive of this? Do I conceive of it as an interpreter? Do I conceive of it as an orchestrator? I and and without that sort of background, I'm having a hard time seeing how it fits into. You know, again, is it really just an extension of composer if it's an orchestrator? So. Yeah, I think it's there. And again, I think I think as a legal underpinning, what has. Usually happened in the past, meaning the people who have attempted to do this in other venues have usually attached a actual legal document or at least a hash of it into the blockchain to confirm that this is the master, like, for example, for an exchange for an asset issuance for a transaction. These are the master contacts that that define the exchange. And if there are any bugs in the actual code, then the master contract would override it and it would be the dispute would be settled outside the blockchain. In other words, code is not the law. The law is the law and the code is, you know, operates most of the time independently. So in terms of the structure of the blockchain itself and the infrastructure of the blockchain, it would be possibly, you know, there would be attachments in terms of the documents that are generated. I mean, I don't know how far we can take this, whether a defined legal contract which is not from a template can be used to automatically generate smart contract code that is yet to be seen, but maybe if it is driven towards a specific template for a specific product, that's why the ISDA is doing it for specific products. For a generic product, it is a little more difficult because you have to come up with, you know, like in every product exchange, there would be already laws or certain attributes governing the product. So once you fill that in, then it will generate both a contract and a smart contract from that. You know, that's normally the process of these kind of frameworks. Yeah, I understood that certainly that's certainly an issue we are dealing with, I think, quite well, but understood. We can further define the generic genericity of our approach, too. By the way, two notes kind of that are related to one, you know, for example, ISDA, right, when when I was a bank and we had the ISDA kind of spec basically for CDS and we work with standardizing after the credit crisis, we still had different implementations, right? So if you're more going to the time open source, the CDS price, you know, this is compliant with the ISDA kind of spec, but no bank actually used it like we all implemented our own, which was faster. So even when we had a spec, nobody agreed on the implementation, right? So similar to what you've been saying, you have the law, you have the recommendations, you have the spec, you have the terminology, but then you have different implementations, right? So we should think about it. Second question that maybe the first one was not really a question, just a comment. I don't understand why the website says that the court project is built in partnership with Hyperledger. Is it the case? Or I don't understand that. It's stated in partnership with Hyperledger. Yeah, the part of that refers to our being an associate member of Hyperledger and not so not like a legal partnership, but a partnership just in the sense that we're a member, an associate member. Yeah, I don't know. I think maybe you should clarify it on the website. Yeah. So here's what I would suggest so that we can move on with the agenda. I would suggest that, again, is I think multiple people have requested to open up the Google Doc so that it can be commented. And that we then take this to the mailing list and the comment thread and then we can pick it up again next week. But again, I think, you know, from from from my perspective, I think, you know, if we're going to do this, then I think that the spec has to be published before we incubate this. Again, I just don't start a project without actually having a foundation to build from. So do you mean published in final form or draft form? It can be draft, but it can be it needs to be public. Can't be a secret is what I'm saying. Sure, we'll get that up in short order. Right. Well, thank you. Yeah. So thanks, Lamon and Dan. So next up, I can't remember. Was it? Is it saw two that's up next in the agenda? Sorry, sorry, Tracy's up. OK. Tracy, training and education, working group. Yeah, thanks, Chris. So went through the comments that were existing in the document, the charter, as it was put together and addressed some of those. So as the first topic, people want to education added to the the name of the working group. So it's now the training and education working group. The second piece was that Bowell asked about whether we would be producing materials in this working group or holding training events. And so the the answer is that we would be providing materials that could be used by others and then this material could be used by others to conduct their training courses. So I added in the scope just kind of that information to make sure that it was reflected that we would be open sourcing the material that we were creating, using obviously the licenses that are part of the hyperledger charter and that the material would be open for others to use in their training courses. The next piece was around whether or not the working group would produce be producing the products or collecting them from project developers of both. So obviously, I think it could be both, but I want the group to be autonomous and develop the material that seems to be needed or required by the the people who are looking for educational material. So I didn't really make any changes to the document based on that. I just left kind of the work products as is. Obviously, you know, if there's some place that makes sense to put that information, we can can do that around whether or not projects already have videos and self-paced training. I don't think they do. Obviously, there was a lot of request for the MOOC that we just released on edX for the introduction to hyperledger technologies. More than 16,000 people signed up for it before it even started. So people are really desperate to get information about blockchain and hyperledger. And so I think, you know, we need to make sure that we're we've got this group that can put that together. And then the last well, there's a couple more comments still we need to figure out like who the maintainers are. So right now we do have an education repo that we've put the first hyperledger MOOC kind of source code into and so far I am a maintainer and Raya is a maintainer, but we obviously need to figure out who the correct maintainers are for this. And then the last comment was whether or not we could leverage existing platforms or create a new one for hyperledger. So what what we've done, obviously, for the first one is use edX because the Linux Foundation has a number of training courses that they offer through edX. And so if it makes sense for us to offer additional MOOCs on edX, I think that would be the direction that we would want to head. So that's that's kind of addressing the comments that exist open to other comments or feedback that now that people have had kind of a chance to review it and think about it and we can decide how to go forward with this. Yeah, so I'm still sort of I'm still struggling and hard to have a great comment in the chat. What Saint is going to you know, what saints are going to be the maintainers for this. I think that, you know, I'm still struggling a little bit with you know, getting the right people to make sure that the content is correct. You know, again, I don't want to get in the way of people wanting to make contributions and do stuff that is always, you know, welcome. But I do think that, you know, when we're putting together training and education material or videos or whatever that you know, if you know, if we're doing sawtooth that Mick or Dan or somebody has had an opportunity or Sean has had an opportunity to to basically review that and give it the Humana Humana that allows it to go forward. If then if we're saying that we're requiring that, you know, Mick or Dan or somebody you know, from sawtooth and somebody from fabric, you know, then the question becomes OK, so how does that? You know, how does that actually work? If you're just saying, well, you know, two maintainers need to review it. But, you know, if you have two maintainers from Roja reviewing the fabric, is that really is it correct? Or is it just, you know, there were no typos, right? So I I'm still struggling a little bit with how we we make make sure that this, you know, the material is produced is is correct. And without necessarily asking a maintainer from another project to be a maintainer on on this and we think about well, let me just finish my so. But we did talk about maybe the material is actually part of the other project. And and it may even, you know, be maintained in a repository that's either part of the other project or whatever. And the working group is really just providing the you know, is providing the the input, the insight, the, you know, the best practices and potentially even, you know, the effort into building it. But it's, you know, it's it's part of that that project. And then therefore the maintainers, you know, they're the ones that are responsible for. Merging any any any commits, you know, any PRs or whatever. And but that that falls into the normal process that those products have. If that makes sense, I think. I think this is a problem that answers itself over time. I think both. Yes, I would hope that the code projects do have somebody who decides to join as a maintainer and be active on such a project to serve as a bridge. In the absence of such a person, I don't think this working group would push out content that they had not validated, you know, because nobody I don't think anybody wants to step in and and, you know, be trying to pretend to be an expert in something they don't know about. So I think we just saw this, we found when we were developing the content for this course the first time around both sides knew that this was important. And I, you know, and so we got engagement from each of the fabric and saw to end a Roja teams to develop that content. And I expect the same kind of thing either, you know, folks from the different projects are joined officially and they see themselves as emissaries. And I think there are many who are coders, but not quite at the technical depth of maybe many of the core coders who see this as a good way for them to contribute. And and I think there'll be a lot of new new new faces as well, who'll come into the community because they can contribute in this way, thinking of other educators, other companies that lead training, you know, and even even university professors and students. I think this is the kind of interesting project for them because they don't have to be a core developer. They don't have to know a lot of the guts of the code to be able to contribute meaningfully to a project like this. So I think it's a self limiting issue, but certainly certainly making sure that the projects know that this is here and they and they and if they got involved, that would lead to higher quality content would be would be ideal. I know most project most problems that I run into in life. I like to just let them solve themselves. That usually works out well for me. It's great. They do. So as I was thinking about this this week and I didn't get around to drafting an email about it, but it started to strike me as it was the idea was being presented kind of like a project where we need people with that kind of educator or presentation skill set to talk about the projects in a way that maybe somebody with a developer skill set can't. And if it if we were going to look at this like a project proposal, then we would see who are the resources that are assigned to this and are the people that are capable of delivering that project. And I think maybe that's one of the things that that I'm a little bit hung up on is it's not clear to me who is actually going to be developing the content. And if it's, you know, maybe this is a way to try to core some some content out of the project teams that isn't being created. But I don't think that's really the intent that's being described. Yeah, so Dan, I have had a lot of people who are wanting to get involved in this working group that have reached out to me after they've seen this and said, you know, hey, let me know when this actually happens because I'm really interested in participating. So, you know, I maybe it would help if all of those people kind of respond to the the proposal and say, you know, like, this is this is a working group. I want to be part of I just, I don't want to limit who participates. Right. I don't want to say, oh, only only these people are allowed to participate in this working group, because I think that people, regardless of their level of expertise, will bring a different set of perspectives to the the working group. Right. And and those perspectives could actually make the training much more valuable for others. And so, you know, I I'm not sure, like, you know, it seems that there's concern about who's going to be involved in this. But I'm not sure that I know how to deal with those concerns. So so Tracy, just to be clear, because I have no concern with who's involved in it. I do have concern over when the material is deemed final or releasable or what have you and who's reviewed it. Does that I mean, there's a clear distinction there. I mean, you know, to your point, I think there are people who bring, you know, either a more education background or presentation background or teaching background, what have you. And they have, you know, there are certain skills involved in how you actually communicate around the technology and not all developers. In fact, most developers don't have those skills, right? So totally. But my point again is but we still want to make sure that when we do put this material out that those who worked to build it agree with the content. And without necessarily having to have them fully engaged and involved through the whole process, because well, they have a job to do, too. And, you know, again, you know, as Hart said in his original comment, which saints are going to to do this, this is, you know, it's asking people to step up and do more. And and that's always a challenge, right? But I do think that if we're getting to a point where we have, you know, let's say we're putting together a presentation that's going to talk about how transaction families works that we get Sean and Dan to review it. And that's part of the process that we make sure that there's an advisor maybe chosen at the beginning of an, you know, of a sub-project or what do you want to call it to do some piece of training or education, material or what have you, and then there's a process for making sure that that's reviewed at the end. OK, I mean, are there people who are like volunteering to be that advisor? I mean, I can't pick the advisors, right? They have to be interested in actually doing that work, right? So we actually, you know, if the process is that an advisor has to approve or a set of advisors has to approve, then we need to know who those advisors are. Well, but I think it's going to depend on you guys decide you want to do, you know, transaction family training. Then you would go to Dan or to Sean or, you know, one of the maintainers of Sawtooth and say. Who can we have review this at the end? That's not hard. I mean, that's I mean, and, you know, similarly for the other projects as well, you go to the project maintainers and you ask, I mean, again, I think, you know, it's one thing to be fully engaged and involved in every meeting of the education work group. And it's another thing to be, you know, sort of have a touchpoint and involved where it's relevant to your particular domain and where you can be adding specific value. But maybe you don't have time to do all, you know, to participate throughout the life cycle of the working group. I think maybe what we should do is go back and develop the roster of maintainers and people who would be actually attached to this project and aim for, I mean, I'm saying offline outside the context of this call, go and try to recruit for this because it feels to me like if you saw a initial set of committed maintainers who represented, you know, all or most of the projects at Hyperledger that would address many of these concerns about it not being disconnected or, you know, a new group of people who has no connection to the existing project or code or anything like that. Would that be helpful? Yeah, I think it would be helpful. I think, maybe I didn't really quite understand. I mean, the roster of maintainers is, and maybe we just do need to make that a little bit more visible, but most projects put it in a maintainer's file, right? So, we hadn't done that here. I think I'm gonna hope that this process would create some volunteers, unless Tracy, I'm missing that. You're not missing that line. Okay. If you guys could excuse my ignorance for a minute. How do we deal with documentation? Is documentation tied to specific projects and ships from the project ships? Or is that an independent group as well? There is no independent documentation group at the moment. That's it almost, you know, like it would seem that if someone's developing a training for fabric or a course for fabric, then, you know, they clearly need to be tied to the fabric project to some degree. The current purpose of fabric was to develop without that, I mean, there's a lot of checking in, though, to make sure he has a similar course, this is the right kind of thing. So, that happens organically, but we definitely need somebody involved with fabric yet. That's very least the tail end of that process. It is? Absolutely. Yeah, I mean, so there was an example, fairly recently, where an individual who is not directly involved in the development of fabric, but was a user, and in order to better understand the platform, he built a number of samples. And then he sent a note to the mailing list saying, hey, I developed a number of samples as part of my work to try and understand, and what do you think? And we all thought that, well, I thought, I think a couple of other people weighed in and thought that, well, these are great. And if he wanted to contribute them, that he should look to maybe do that. But then that's, again, if it does come under the Hyperledger umbrella, so to speak, then it would get the review of the people that are maintainers on the fabric samples, right? And if there's errors or whatever, they are gonna get addressed. And if they're good, they're good. But that's fabric, right? And this is where I sort of fundamentally think that, yes, there are gonna be individuals who want to contribute, who want to help work on improving the material that we have to communicate the technologies that we're building here, whether it's fabric or sawtooth or Roja, Borough, Indy, whatever. And we love them to do that, but again, I do think that we just need that, what is the process then to go and get somebody to come and review it to make sure that it's correct? And I think that, just we could run it by the TSC, but the TSC doesn't necessarily have individuals as a member of the TSC who are maintainers on cello or what have you, right? Well, we do, but... Could you, Chris, could you draft something that describes kind of what you'd be looking for? And we could maybe make that part of next week's conversation. Okay. Because I don't know that I would be concerned at over-specifying how that works. And then we end up with a lot of conversation about what is essentially a process detail that can be hammered out once the group is created. You know, Brian, let me come back. I think this is actually pretty straightforward. I'm just saying that, look, if the working group comes out and they want to publish something and say that this is done, that the process is that they go to the project that's relevant and they ask for somebody to do a technical review for correctness. It's simple. And they get feedback and they fix it or they publish it. It's, I don't, I'm not trying to make it a big process. I'm just trying to say where is that? That's not documented in this proposal. That's my point. I think we all agree that creating the training materials is a valuable exercise and we should have, and finding resources to help us who are trained in developing that material is a good thing. So I think that's not the issue. Brian, I hear what you say about, you know, let's sort of figure this out. And I would feel a lot more comfortable just the proposal for now is, why don't we just go develop the first set of material for the first set of material we focus on TSC approval and have this discussion again when we have a concrete piece of collateral that we can talk about who should have approved that and then develop the process from there. It feels like we're being really prescriptive about something we really don't know about and that's kind of causing a lot of the conflict right now. Okay, I mean, we've created that, it's up on edX now and we could schedule a future conversation to talk about how that process worked, who was involved in that, and how much should that serve as a template going forward or be adjusted going forward? I would feel a lot more comfortable about having that in a very concrete, with a piece of collateral that we can talk about that roots the conversation a little bit more. I mean, as it feels like, I'm all in favor of the proposals as is right now, because I think the value of generating the material is high enough that we should be moving forward. I also understand this sort of concern about, don't release something unless the, don't release something about a project unless the people in the project have had some opportunity to review it. And yeah, okay, so it's on edX, that's great. So bring it in here, let's review the very specific content that's been done, not for the purpose of reviewing the content, but for reviewing who should be the ones that are kind of in the loop for approving, that is run it through as kind of a straw man proposal process. And I guess that's sort of where I was trying to get to is, what's the approval for documentation? You know, does training material need to be any different? Okay, we could do that. I was more fond of the idea that it was coming back with a set of maintainers that the TSE could trust to do this work. And if the TSE wants to, I mean, this is all more time investment by the TSE, but if we want to do that on these calls in the future, it feels like there's a, there is work on the proposal side to do to identify those maintainers, and if they were a familiar name, I think the TSE would be comfortable delegating that task to those names. But if, and I was hoping that this proposal would engender some more volunteers, because clearly it's a passionate topic for many folks, and I don't think this ends up being a lot of extra work for the tier of people who would be talking about how this works and how it gets approved, and it would be a way to bring in more contributors as well to try to scale up, so it's not so much asking more from a small group, but more opportunity from a larger group for larger groups to participate. So if we come back with an amendment to this, which lists maintainers, maybe that's the thing to talk about next week or the week after. Sounds good. Okay. We have two minutes for Dan, so we don't have two minutes for Dan, unfortunately. Everything is wonderful. It's... We should, I think we should do these project updates closer to the beginnings of agendas in the future. Okay. Right. So apologies, Dan. So we'll get to you next week. And we also have, what, a Roja I think next week. So we'll try and put those both up in the beginning talk. Oh, there. All right. Well, thanks everyone. Good discussion. And I guess we'll take the discussion of the working group and the, and Cicero to the mailing list and to the comment threads. And we'll see you all next week. Thanks. Thanks everyone. Thanks everyone. Yeah. Comments right there. Yeah.