 All right All right. Hello everybody today is August 8th 2019 And this is the hyper ledger technical steering committee call Everybody's welcome from the community to participate on this call so long as you abide by the antitrust policy and our community code of conduct Which says a variety of things including please be respectful of everybody's contributions Regardless of what they look like and since this is a phone call regardless of what you think that they might look like Okay, first off announcements it is coming up on election season for this steering committee No, we'll enter a nomination phase next week We had publicized this process a little bit more in advance in the past We had some things like the Member summit going on last week that threw a wrench in that but we're going to try to do our best to make sure that this is well advertised one of the issues that we noticed last year was that the people who Nominated themselves or who were nominated didn't necessarily represent the full breadth of our community And so what I'd like to ask everybody who's participating on this call to do is to think about Whose opinion they respect in the community who's been strong contributor here and maybe reach out to that individual and Ask them to nominate or perhaps nominate that individual and maybe in that way we'll get a more representative and diverse set of of nominees to Review for this upcoming election One other thing to point out is that we can get the eligible participants from Code contributions pretty directly the working groups though are less automated So if you are a working group chair or you know a working group chair that person should have received a note from I think Dave Within the last several hours And that's right and that is requesting that you provide a list of the contributors to your working group to Dave that should be people who've contributed from I guess September of 2018 up till this point the lists are supposed to go to Rai Dan Sure sure note came from Dave, but send your response to Rai I'm concerned I might not get enough email So I've asked everything to run through my address anyway That's great Let's see here so and then Rai will you'll be Hitting that full list of people so that they know that whether or not their name is on there The full list of the working group submitted people When you have the entire list from the Contributors mined out of the git logs and the working group people Everybody will receive a Invitation to the nomination process. Is that how that will work? Good question. I see How did we do it last year and I see Tracy is saying yeah Yeah, I can help with that so Last year We created the list of people who contributed via code contributions got the list of people who contributed via the working group chairs Posted that list on the TSC mailing list for A time period So that people who may have contributed but somehow didn't show up on the list could Let let us know that they contribute it once the contribution list was created in the timeline past At email was sent out to those people Who were eligible Basically made a contribution in the past year letting them know that they should if they want to send their Nomination to Todd last year was Todd's I'm assuming this year of parking you right or Dave or somebody else And then Todd compiled those People created the the poll through whatever that pulling tool was that we used sent out the the poll to the people who contributors list And then I think you know, what was it a week or something that people had to fill out who they wanted to have in the TSC after that the 11 TSC people Had like a week or something to nominate themselves for your TSC chair And then the TSC voted on the new TSC chair. Okay. Thanks for the Yeah, this this Chris so, um I'd like to raise a point and I think Brian is on and Salona You know, we started Hyperledger with 11 premier members and you know, we sort of crafted the TSC around an initial You know what each each premier member got to name a temporary TSC person until the first election Six months later. The board is now at 21 and Yet we haven't grown the TSC and we now have More projects than we have TSC members and we also have a number of working groups and so forth where people are You know contributing meaningfully and so forth. I'm just curious to see what other people think about Prospect of potentially expanding the TSC membership so that we can get broader representation of A lot of the projects that are probably underrepresented and And just get interested to get people's thoughts on that. I would be interested in that. I think expanding the diversity would be great. I Think being able to have a more diverse representation is a good thing We want to be careful that we don't Get to be too big to where no one feels like they have a specific responsibility But I think we could grow some before that would happen Yeah, I'm I'm I'm really I'm not suggesting that we make it limited but I think we have we may have an opportunity here to actually Going on and I like to have people think about that. It didn't have to happen before, you know, we have So, Chris, well, what's the number you suggest? Oh, I don't know. I mean Like I said, the board is up to 21 now We have I think 13 projects or 12 certainly 12 I'm starting to lose count and And I think we all know that there's a couple more And Yeah, 13 is not a lacking number Yeah, well, so maybe 15 or 17 would be reasonable Yeah, 17 maybe Well, if I can interject this is one of the smallest TSCs I worked with so yes, I support that And one thing that we did on other TSCs was kind of a rolling quorum where if you don't show up for so many So many meetings then your vote is lost for quorum So that people who don't show up Don't clog the voting process and that's one thing to keep in mind is as we expand more people would need to be here to meet quorum anyway And I was just going to add to that Chris. I think, you know, that the The diversity of projects is requiring a diversity of talents and as the projects are coming in and the proposals come in Having a diverse TSC where we've got experts on a lot of different areas would be really helpful as well so I fully agree if I can throw in another thing so one of the suggestions that has come up To me at least in terms of looking at increasing diversity was to do something that I believe the cloud native compute foundation does which is that the What they call their technical oversight committee rather than technical steering committee Can appoint I forget if it's them or if it's the governing board, but why they're one of them Appoints additional At-large seats to the the TSC to the to see in their case and those are Not voted upon by the general population, but a but a sign so imagine for example the 11 new TSC members You know just after they've been elected then has the opportunity as their first decision to go Well, who are say five more people or six to keep it odd if we want Six more people in our community who we feel You know not enough people know about but but really we'd love to also reach out to and that can be to increase diversity in a number of different ways of projects of gender of Of other things or simply under under her voices, right? That that that helps it be, you know Avoid being hey elect 21 new people most of whom you don't know Yeah, no, I Brian I think that was baked into the tov charter initially that they were going to have six I think and then they could pick one Additional something along those lines. So that's not a bad idea Yeah, so here's what I would like to do then um Especially since this wasn't on the agenda for people to think about prior to today Let's let's continue that discussion on the mail list and I'd recommend that that's maybe one of the first actions that the new TSC Uh, it takes a look at it's it's a little bit awkward to change elections right before they happen and We're already not suggesting we do it before it will also require a charter amendment Which would need to be approved by a super majority of the full governing board So that'll take just a bit of time on its own So Okay, so maybe it's the board that has to make that decision Yeah, but I'm sure if the TSC came in and said what do you think about this? Then it was well argued. I would be surprised if there'd be much pushback Okay Would it be inappropriate to say that that you know, this is the first order of business and perhaps that the plan is this TSC The after this election the TSC has constituted lasts for like three months Until there's a new round of elections to expand Not that the people who run would have to rerun but that the stated goal is that should the governing board approve We expand the TSC and we run another round of elections in december or something of that nature There's a few hypotheticals bound into that. Um So I think it's best. Let's just keep the election as it's written as we're heading into the You know, we only have a couple weeks before that And then let's let the the new TSC Tackle that problem I'm sure they can come up with rules like like what rye just suggested that within some reasonable period of time they they elect the additional participants Okay, so the main message though for today is because we've got Less runway in front of us than we've had in previous elections Uh, please do reach out to those leaders that you respect in the community and encourage them to nominate themselves into this steering committee all right, um Project life cycle task force So we we were able to We were able to resolve two of the resolutions last time And I think we've got uh, arnaw was just saying a few more Lined up ready to go when I checked in on these earlier this week. I didn't see any additional discussion So i'm hoping we might be able to knock through uh several of them here Yeah, so the agenda is a bit optimistic in saying vote on remaining resolutions I don't think we can do that for all of them, but I think we can have like Consider I put three of them that I think are probably low-hanging fruits Um So we can start and take them one by one The first one is issue one Hang on arna do we have the link to that offhand? Oh wait, where did that go? It's india as I say I'm looking at the agenda. I want to wonder if I just need to refresh. All right Is this the page that I'm displaying right now? I'm looking at the 2019 808 tsc agenda and Yeah, the project lifecycle task force should be a link to the page. Got it. That's what I'm looking for. Thank you Look at the top Scroll back and please Yes, please Okay, so I you know, so there's a We have two resolved issues we discussed last week four and five. So now we'd like to tackle one seven and eight Okay So the first one let's start with issue one. There are two Related proposed resolutions Essentially it's it's similar the first one is You know, it's to try to deal with the situation where you have basically a defunct or ghost project, right? And so it defines That after six months, you know with that activity Uh the tsc basically would take the decision to move the project to deprecated status, which is The status we have in a project lifecycle And after six more months if nothing happened, then it does move to end of life Which is also a status we have so this kind of defines the transitions with periods of six months It also defines At least partially what constitutes activity, right? So at the end there it says software releases quarterly tsc report as well as significant code enhancements will be considered as signs of activities So There is one caveat in this which is when we define deprecated Um Basically the idea was actually something a bit more, you know, uh voluntary if we will So the idea was well, there's a project that says, okay, we are done now. We're going to deprecate this project We still commit to maintain it for six months In this case. Well, we can't have that commitment fulfilled because we are in this situation where people have basically abandoned the project and we're just saying, okay, we need to We need to put this guy to rest But I think it's a minor glitch And I don't think it's a big deal We can just ignore that for now if we really wanted we could go and alter the definition of deprecated But I honestly don't think that's really a major issue And and the other one which I don't think is going to be controversial is basically the same But it's at the request of the project maintainers themselves Okay, it's they are the it's the project maintainers who come and say ATSC we we want to move to deprecated because we are not planning to keep on work on this All right. Well, I think that's all very clear Does anybody need any clarifying? questions Um, yeah, we're voting on resolution one one as opposed to resolution one two for it We'll be voting on both of those resolutions So, um I guess I should have looked at this more closely before we actually have an archive We have the hyperledger archives organization for archived projects For you know, whatever reason We're creating yet a new status here end of life Um, and yet we already had No, no, we're not creating it to Chris it exists in the life cycle We haven't used it yet, but it's defined Okay So the hyperledger archives, uh, I I created that a long time ago Back in the beginning of time And I created that as a parking lot for pre squash, uh projects So like the fabric the original open, uh open chain Uh repos are in there and all that and then as uh projects like Aroha for instance have said we're done developing this Uh, I have moved those projects into the hyperledger archives on github. So that was a creation of mine to uh Not lose history and yet not clog our github org with stuff So don't read too much into the fact that it exists and it's a tool that we can use So but I don't think the two are necessarily in conflict. I mean Um, there is no status in the project of life. There's no archive status, but Nothing prevents us from saying a when project reaches end of life. We will archive it, you know right so and There has github has introduced a status since the beginning of hyperledger, which is to archive a project So that's a new status where I can click a button on a project and say it's archived And you no longer get pull requests. You no longer get any of that. So There are additional States in the state transition diagram there Okay That's good. So Yeah, but I mean Okay, fair enough. Well, we could we could then have another resolution about Renaming end of life to archive. I mean, I don't care. Mechanically, it's the same thing Hi, it's bobby. How are you? um on the Home page for the life cycle project I put a grid on there that if um rye if you could scroll back up to that first page It shows the project life cycle and all where the issues fall in the life cycle And then I've noted the ones that we've resolved. So just scroll down a little bit more So if you'll see I put across the top the project life cycle stages And then where the issues fall and whether they're resolved or not just hoping to organize this a little bit more Thank you Okay, so I think with the the clarification that that ul is not a new Um state that that's in the existing life cycle document Um, is there anything else that needs clarification before we move into a vote for these two resolutions So mick, you said one one. Did you have a problem with one two? These aren't resolutions I was no, I was just trying to figure out if we if it wasn't either or or if it was above now We had this discussion earlier my concern with one two When when I think we had one two is the only one or some variant of it was Uh, what if the maintainers are gone? Who does the proposal? So so if this is a both I am very happy with and I just wanted to make sure that's what we were doing Okay, thanks So yes, the proposal is to To accept and to to adopt both of those resolutions I make a motion we adopt both resolutions by second Okay, all in favor. Hi Hi Hi, hi Any opposed Any abstentions? All right, that motion passes. Uh, who by the way is taking notes today That is me. Okay, Dave Gather that you've captured that Yep, I am um particularly important to capture Yep, I am great All right, so going back to the list the next issue is issue seven How or when does the project get officially named? um So the problem with the links because it links to issue five which has been resolved. Oh, shit I'm not sure where seven is. Hold on. Let me find it Yeah, there's a problem there. You're right. Here we go. If you click on bobby's table it works Yeah, on the left. They are on the list also. Thanks So This is mostly about, you know, at what point do we try to name the project there was this discussion Does it come Before the proposal is done do we do it after and this is just trying to Be done in fact, I believe Which is that basically a proposal comes with a name That hopefully is at least acceptable for the time being And uh, you know, and then um Eventually the marketing committee is responsible for giving the the final name I mean the yeah, the the big the biggest disadvantage is if you do change names then, you know Raya has more work to do because he has to change the repository name and that kind of stuff can be a bit but No, actually that it all the linking and everything just it automatically Yeah Does that include mailing lists and rocket There's a bunch of other stuff, um You know, I would I would counsel like not changing names not for this project But on another project we had We started out with a great codename that everyone loved which I think was project, uh, router dam And uh, it ended up becoming I think fido And all the internal resources for that are so prefixed with, uh, router dam Which is a much longer thing to type than fdio, right? So Two short names and please don't change them Hey, I mean, you know, we don't it seems to me that creating mailing lists and so forth before um I mean Couldn't there just be a general mailing list for use for proto projects that haven't had their name approved yet Because just not to reash the whole discussion, but you know the the alternative is that The marketing community has to get involved upfront and decide on the name before the tsc approves it Which is also seen as a bit of a waste in case of you know, the tsc might Decide well, we're not going to create this project. Maybe we create a lab or or we don't accept it at all And then all of this work has been done for nuts Well, the names could still be used for the lab, right? And that way when it if it moved from lab to Incubation it would already be named That's true I think there's there's two things the proposal didn't Also capture one is um, I mean it's kind of I I deal that the developers themselves feel like you know, they've got a resonance with the name. I mean It'd be funny to be told congratulations. Your project's been approved and you will now be called robert That's what your parents did to you though Ouch Got me there. I yes, boy. We're having fun this morning. Yeah Yeah, is this even a problem? How many projects have come in that? Have to change names Hey, let's not beat that. You know a dead horse here Basically We we uh, you know, they have to work together Obviously the modeling committee cannot hand down a name that project developers do not accept It has to be a collaborative effort. I mean the whole idea of this Hyperlegio is a collaborative effort So if we cannot even collaborate on a name then you know why be here Well, and I don't mind this I I think the spirit of this resolution is is fine We're just saying the project's going to do its best to pick a name But until it goes to the marketing committee, it's not final and we're prepared to help the project change the name If they have to change the name That's the spirit Which I mean this is basically a reflection of what we already do. Yes, I think that's that's just codifying what we already do so I motion for a vote to accept this Issue seven. I second that All in favor All right. Hi. Yes. Hi. Hi Just one still mark, uh, all opposed Anybody abstaining all right Sorry, what was that recorded Sightless who you were abstaining Only because I'm late Okay, miss most discussion Okay, this is over issue seven. Uh, when we name a project, uh, so Really, there's there's no change from the draft that's been up there from July 16th, maybe but Just as well All right, so we have one more we might be able to tackle today, which is issue eight How do we deal with a new project coming in that is already a shipping product for a company? And in particular this This touches on the on the status of the project And I mean so far all the projects we've received They they first started incubation and then eventually moved to active status Although they didn't all do that but that would be the next step, right And the question was that came up in discussions before was really hey if the project was really mature Imagine there's a project that comes in. They already have a community. They already have their act together. It's a open source Can they just be in active status from the get go? And so essentially the crux of this resolution is to say no It's the all the projects will start in incubation and I actually add then at some point I had proposed that at the at the time of the proposal to the tsc The project leaders might say hey We believe we can also qualify to move to active status immediately because we meet the exit area of incubation But when we looked into the detail realized well, actually that's not practically possible Because there are things like, you know, you're supposed to have created a community. You have to have Even a repo within hyperledger mailing list all that stuff I mean it would take at least a few days So practically speaking it's impossible to to have both of those things happen at the same time So this ends up saying no it might be fairly short You might be able to get to a to propose to Transition to active status pretty quickly, but it won't be you know on day one And in all cases that means project starts incubation All right, anybody require clarifying Any clarifying questions? No, I think our no articulated it very well and I'd make a motion to accept this I second it all in favor I Hi Hi Hi All opposed Anybody abstaining? All right, motion carries Resolution is adopted So so we really have just for future reference. We still have two major issues left And I'm sorry to say they are not these just maybe that's what's left. Obviously There is the criteria for the first major release which we have never really nailed down And then there is you know this question of sub projects So I will try to get the group to to make progress on those issues. There is also There is a third one, but the third one is pretty much given if We solve the other ones Well, I think we can spare a couple minutes if you want to tee up one of those issues Sometimes that stimulates people to go actually respond on the on the wiki if they wouldn't otherwise do it Okay, so I I can I can say the the the one that's kind of moot is the issue three Which you know, so we have issue two which is the criteria to For first major release and then we had issue three which is and what after the first major release And basically if you click on issue three, you'll see there's a proposed resolution that says well The same will apply for every major release. So of course, it's kind of punting because We haven't until we actually define those criteria for the first major release Just saying hey for every major release. We use the same criteria as the first major release is kind of you know It's meta a little bit, but so That's where we are And you may remember that when it came to the first major release We had these discussions and david started You know Developing a draft of what he called the propo the the project readiness And I think what's going to be the most challenging part is to kind of You know articulate We we've made the efforts in the past right to differentiate the readiness of the project as an organization the community Which is reflected in the incubation versus active status And the readiness of the product the software that is being produced by that project And which is reflected in whether they have a major release or not, right? And and we've all agreed that there is not an absolutely clean separation And so we need to really nail that down to a clear description of you know What what and and my problem with you know, no offense to david's effort because I you know He definitely tried to put some stuff on paper, which is always nice But it kind of merges back those two things With that, you know, and we need to try to separate those things again as much as we can Accepting that it's not possible 100 percent, but that's where in my opinion the issue really is It it lies there Yeah, and to I just want to support arno's just uh assessment that yeah You have brought a lot of clarity to this In your efforts, and I appreciate it There are a lot of technical things around project readiness Which is why they know that dealing with security and stuff, which is why I had originally started this effort We have a lot of like a lot of details That need to be in a lot of check marks that need to be ticked for a project to be quote unquote ready And I don't want to go into them here, but It's it's quite extensive like the cii badging You know ci pipelines security audits a lot of other things And Then I would say just for to touch kind of an intro to issue six the sub project I think it you know, I honestly don't know we're going to really make progress on that one because there are fundamentally Like different philosophies and people have different opinions There are pros and cons to different approaches And I don't know I haven't seen any sign that there is Some kind of convergence or there's a majority of people saying yeah, we should do this or not And and it really comes down to this notion of Do we multiply the number of top level projects accepting that quite a few of those may not be Totally independent from one another So like we've talked about in the past we had composer which is completely dependent on fabric And then we have explorer which really only supports fabric and is that okay? Or do we say no when we have projects like this? They should be sub projects of the top level project So instead of having hyperledger explorer You could have an explorer sub projects of fabric and in many cases we already have those So if you look at fabric, we have many different SDKs They pretty much function as separate projects Even the fabric CAs is separate repo and we have different maintainers in different repos Fabric samples is a different list of maintainers and so You know And we had proposals even this week again, right? There's a justicia Proposal and this question came up is like well, what do what place do we give it? Do we make that a sub project? and so I honestly don't know You know that we have Some kind of convergence of mind there. I hear people arguing pretty Strongly on one way or the other Okay, um, thanks for for teeing those up looking at issue number two I wonder if we could get that resolution built into a set of bullet points Yeah That's that's yes, that's part of what I meant by I'm going to try to make progress I I mean history shows that basically I have to put proposal before the group to look at and say no I don't like this. So oh, but you forget that that kind of provokes people's thinking and we can make progress I haven't really done that here If you look and just say so insert here any criteria from this project reading this proposal, blah, blah, blah So this needs to be fleshed out Okay, great All right, thanks again for uh leading us through that arno Okay into uh housekeeping territory and The CICD committee There was an update put up around the 25th That maybe people have had a chance to read. I'm not sure but uh, I've linked it there into the agenda um, not looking for a discussion at this point, but Uh, Dave if you want to just give a couple words on the status of the committee Yeah, so, um There had been a lot going on behind the scenes right when we were About to come to some form of a conclusion. We had one more option come in which was azure pipelines um that some people from the fabric team are looking at and It looks very promising and has kind of reset us back into. Hmm. Maybe this meets all of our requirements We're not quite ready to give up on Our investigations on circle ci and some of the other solutions But uh, yeah We were all kind of offline last week for the the member summit and the current status is There's a lot going on behind the scenes. We're gonna have another update fairly soon. I don't know exactly when But the uh, CICD meeting tomorrow Will be largely about discussing what everybody has learned in the last couple weeks testing out azure pipelines and and stuff like that so Still the goal is to try to come up with sort of a one ci solution to rule them all You know, is that even possible or not? Um So we're going to be trying to answer that tomorrow and Yeah, if you guys want to participate if you're concerned about the ci and your project definitely come and join the meeting um But we are definitely getting to the point where we can Effectively report back. I think it's it's been a long It's slog because there have been so many technical options and hurdles and things like that. So Okay, Dave, how many how many projects are participating in this committee? Well, so it's kind of come and go Um Consistently, it's not all of the projects, but we've had a very good participation from the fabric team Again, I want to thank them, you know, bret specifically has been On top of this since day one and consistently attending We've had people from burrow show up. We've had people from sawtooth show up, uh, roha indy Ursa areas um, I've reached out to like The explorer and composer groups and stuff, but we haven't seen anybody from them. So it's It's a good Half of our projects, you know a lot of the the core platforms and stuff. So I feel like the engagement is pretty high Once we have better answers I plan on going to maintainers of all the projects and Getting their direct feedback on our proposal kind of like how arno is going about the life cycle stuff Before we make our final report Okay, because in theory everyone's supposed to be using the same basic flow and all right Out of the charter and the rules the original Goal of this workforce was to or work group was to Answer can we have one ci cd pipeline for all projects? And that answer hasn't been sufficiently determined yet Because then all the other questions fall from there If the answer is yes, then which one if the answer is no, then which ones are we going to support and do we maintain? You know, how do we decide which ones to support blah blah blah that kind of So we are um, yeah, so thank thanks for the update dave I just need to manage the clock here because we got a lot of agenda left What one closing thought on this is as that committee meets, uh, I'll ask that that you guys think about Uh, when we started it It looked like it was going to be a real short term thing and a committee made sense If it looks like this will be an ongoing thing Please think about whether this should be properly recharted as something like a working group that is community led and How that might impact participation and Resolution Noted dan. I think tomorrow's meeting will answer a lot of the working groups to the the working groups Okay Thanks, dave um So the the working groups committee, um, I guess seeing that that we haven't uh Yeah, there's nothing to report at this point. Although I think we've made enough progress on the life cycle So if we can start having that conversation so I'm not ready to put a date on it, but I will start sending some stuff out and start coordinating it We've got some of the notes from before and we just need to go back and organize it Okay, great. And then um, I think that the approach that arno has adopted with With having a series of resolutions seems to have been really effective and yeah It's also a great use of the wiki. So I think we're figuring out how to use our tools And that worked cool Yeah, I agree. I'm really happy with how that's going All right, uh Okay, subsequent to when I put the agenda together somebody added, uh, some new project proposal discussions Um, I'm not quite prepared to go through those because I haven't visited those yet But let's make sure that that we hit those next week We have reports available for borough and indy today when I checked in on these late yesterday it seemed Borough had been the borough report had been most read. So let's go ahead and start with that and we can, um Prioritize clarifying questions that that people have for borough If people want to on their own follow the link to the q3 borough report Um, yeah, I could I could kick things off the um happy to answer any questions about the specific items But basically the project is going along Um, much as it has done Uh, we've increased amount of stuff getting done. Actually, we've had quite a bumper set of features Um, and to my non scientific observations, it seems like there's a bit of an uptick in both some chat and issues getting made. Um We're still not breaking out of the monax dominated maintainer and contributorship um But yeah, the main thing that I was interested perhaps in raising the tsc was uh, yeah, it's kind of dawned on me and seeing some of these issues come up that um I think probably borrows the one end of borrows user and contributor funnel is being really hurt by our um lacking documentation in particular on the one hand and then on the other hand, um a kind of lack of vision or philosophy for borough and get people to understand why they might choose it and Uh to realize actually that there's Kind of most of the value that's been added to it in the last year Two years has nothing to do with evm. Um, which is not a perception that is there. So um, as I say in the in the update, I've got a A blog post I'm preparing. I uh, I'm not sure who I need to talk to about that to see if we can get that on the hyper ledger blog but as a bit of a refresher on borough and Deeper look into some of the features and then a plea for help But I also think there's some low level stuff Some of which we we can find time to do But around the getting started documentation and so on that would Stop us from losing people. So we're getting issues from people who are saying like, oh, look, this doesn't work Like these two flags are incompatible. Um You know one person reports that how many people just walked away from the project My Submission is quite a few. Um So, yeah, I don't know if there's any advice or any particularly any channels once this blog post is ready and We try to up the dots my push for contributors would be to try and get people to come on and Create some not super heavyweight But create some documentation of their own experiences with borough because a lot of people seem to be doing this But if I could push people over the line to actually get that contributed to the project I think that would be a big win. Um, and for the broader like what is borough? Why would you use it? Any Any advice as how I could get that out. I'll try and get it on the hyperlegia blog But if anyone else has any channels that that could go out on and that would make sense for them Then I'm all ears Do you almost have to take a step back and fix some of the documentation and code sample issues? Before you do a blog post because if you do a blog post people are going to try it and have all the issues you run into and they're going to walk away and I mean, you know, they may not come back to borough, but they also may not come back to hyperlegia. They may infer quality of other projects based on borough Yeah, no, that's that's a good point. Um The I mean attention the tension for us is that, you know, we're a startup trying to um earn our lunch And and this isn't directly Um, like benefiting us right now having said that. Yes. I I am So I mean on these particular issues So I put in there I think one fairly simple thing we can do is just make sure that we're running our our code snippets with our ci Um, so that's something I would like to to get going another former contributor maintainer Um, I can't remember quite what he ended up as has come back into the phrase So I'm going to see if I can get some help from him. I've also added some docs. I mean Actually, some of the docs that were broken were actually new docs. Um that people wanted to hear about But yeah, no, you're right. I think that I think that we can certainly find some time to have a little bit of a push on You know the documentation that we do have to make that so it actually works and you get a nice experience of that um We also have a workshop that we put together that that is actually quite a good little tutorial. Um, I don't know if we could reform about that but um Yeah, I feel like the I mean, I don't know let the uh the perfect be the enemy of the good But it can be a huge time sink once you get into these things I do try and find some time for it, but could really do with some Some assistance from perhaps from people who are and there's been a few false starts with people who kind of wanted to get Involving the project borough doesn't have quite the contention ratio as say fabric. Um, but they never quite got off the ground so I don't know if Salona's on the call. Um, but If there's anyone from the community who knows of a an intern or someone interested Who doesn't necessarily need to to have expert coding skills just yet who would like to get their foot in the door of a project and then I'm ready to be reintroduced and Yeah, I'm gonna make a bit more time for this myself over the next Month and you're right. I should I should do that before the blog post goes out Maybe if you send something internally to hyperledger first Um, like even to the tsc list people could Go through, you know, I could dedicate a data going through and Running through and seeing what works. What doesn't work based off, you know, as someone who doesn't know it That would be brilliant. Yeah, if other people could do that too Yeah, so I All too and uh, there was a really good response to this in, um, brazil So I think there is stuff that's done in portuguese. So we should probably try to figure out how to intersect with the people who Um, did such a good demo of burro at the bootcamp in brazil And uh, jessica, could you provide guidance to Silas on the blog path or suggest someone who would be appropriate for that? Oh Hello. Uh, yeah, of course. Um, so if you're willing to put a blog together I can send you over, uh, some guidelines. Um, if that would be helpful Um, just, you know, email me j rampon at at uh linuxfoundation.org Um, and I can I can get that over to you and work together with the pr team to kind of fine tune it and you know Add in images and anything else that make it a little bit more interesting Okay, so we'll I think it'll take me maybe Till the end of next week to finish out a rough draft that I have in markdown Okay, I'll send that round to the tsc and I'll send it send it over to you as well Yeah Get some feedback there and make sure Um, any any suggested tutorials or work for his actually work. Yeah That sounds great Okay, well, thanks silas and the burro team for the update And we need to quickly speed along now to the uh indie update So one thing that I happened to notice in in this update was the the dialogue at the bottom with, uh Chris and steven It appeared that um I think this is the one that that Seem like steven was not aware of the the ci task force So one of that doesn't surprise me that steven wasn't aware of the ci task force Also, I think in this report the Some of the frustrations from the team kind of bubbled into the report The thought was with the ci task force going on that giving as much of an unvarnished opinion about, you know What it had what what frustrations that were around ci cd? um would be helpful and you know, I think Perhaps that feedback wasn't taken in the same spirit it was given Well, I I think it is very helpful to have Unvarnished opinions as you put it. Uh, it's good to have I mean the whole point of these updates is to make sure that the The tsc and the projects are in communication um, so offline if if steven or somebody else wants to provide feedback about Why they weren't aware of something that was pretty well publicized up to that point We'll figure out why there's a disconnect in in publicizing the committee And so I think the committee is pretty well well aware of where the indy build system is at and what's been going on there I know mike has been active on that committee and I think that that feedback has been incorporated Stephen has been working through mike on that so steven's not as aware of what's going on there But I don't think he's just I don't think the process is disconnected Okay, so if the process isn't disconnected, then I guess The other thing is just the the feedback that's directly in here about those frustrations with ci cd Those on the committee can can hopefully read through this report and Round out their understanding Yeah, I I welcome this feedback. I welcome like direct feedback like this. So, uh, personally, I'm totally cool with this I I was about to say the exact same thing, right? Thank you Um, I also did want to point out that the indy team was uh heavily engaged where mike was he and I ran some experiments early on um to test community volunteers adding resources to uh a build pool and That actually informed a lot of our early efforts. So Yeah, I just want to acknowledge the indy team has been connected in okay, um Nathan is there anything that that you wanted to ask of the tsc issues that you wanted to highlight beyond the ci stuff Um, you know just one thing to pay attention to between these projects is We're working on the the split of code from the indy code base into the aries code base And so we're still working on how that Divide Happens logistically Things are going well there, but it's an area to pay attention to I know especially some of the folks at the decentralized identity foundation and elsewhere Have been a little bit nervous about what standardization for a wallet layer would mean and whether They need to to participate more heavily in hyper ledger areas specifically. Um, so I'm hoping we see A healthy evolution there I think the indy and the aries communities are starting to solidify and understand kind of how those two pieces fit together and where the divide between them are As we get some of the folks from the diff participating more in areas. We might see a little bit more Controversy around some of the decisions that are being made now And do you still use the term plenum or is that indy node? um, so indy Indy plenum is the The base ledger framework and then indy node adds essentially the identity transaction family and identity Specialization on top of plenum. So the indy project still has those two core components Okay, and I would see updates on plenum in here. Is that Sort of ledger 2o then Yeah, the ledger next Indy ledger next channel in rocket chat is where that discussion has been going on um Avernem has kind of resourced down some of its efforts on the ledger next project We've been recruiting contributors around to help with that We have some lined up that want to start here in the fall. So I expect in the q4 report will have more Around what's going on with updates to the plenum player Okay. Well, great. I don't hear anybody else speaking up with the questions So thanks Nathan and the rest of the indy team for putting together a very detailed report And that brings us to the end of our time here. So just as a heads up for Next week, we've got the two proposals that are being raised It looks like there's a good bit of discussion in the wiki there that the people could catch up on beforehand Dan, do we need to vote on these updates or do we not do that anymore? Uh, I don't Recall us voting on them in a long time. What we decided was the checklists at the bottom are for acknowledging that people have have read them Really a decision to be made about the report Okay All right. Well, that brings us to the end of the hour. Thanks again for everybody's time and uh, um, look forward to speaking again next week You