 So we have teed up on the agenda today and I'm just catching up from my own vacation hackfest planning we have process update on the annual election for the TSC spots and project reporting I don't again I'm totally catching up Todd so was there any thread this week or is this just a reminder that we'd like yeah really just a reminder so I know Tracy sent out a thread about a week and a half ago it was briefly discussed on the TSC call last week and the action was for folks in the technical community as well as the TSC to provide any feedback on that through email we didn't see anything come through over the last week so really just a reminder for folks to have a read through that have a think and provide any feedback so hopefully next week we can bring a more fully baked proposal back to the group okay and then there's a proposal for fabric Explorer there's actually a blockchain Explorer project already I think at this point and especially since we don't have quorum we should just maybe go through the proposal have it presented by the composers and then we can talk about how we want to handle this going forward so is there anything else that anyone has for the agenda that we're missing okay then Todd I would suggest we get ahead go ahead with the planning all right sounds good so we're looking like September 21st and 22nd in Chicago for the next hackfest we're just in final discussions with the potential host there so hoping to have an answer in the next couple days so we can get registration booted up for that and folks can book travel don't book anything yet this is still tentative but it is looking fairly likely that will work out and then the second thing just related to Europe I'm gonna drop the doodle poll into the chat window if you are planning to attend the European hackfest let us know your preferred availability for that so we can hone in on dates and find a location for that and that will probably be the last hackfest for the year looking at October November timeframe any questions on either those before we move on to the elections all right all right so in terms of elections I'm dropping a Google dock into the chat window this is very similar to what we saw last year let me just talk quickly high-level timeline and then I know Tracy has a few comments to add as well so very similar to last year the the 11TSC members were announced on August 25th of last year so their the term will conclude on August 24th so this is all detailed out in the charter essentially the contributors and maintainers are eligible to nominate themselves to ultimately then get elected on to the TSC which has the 11 seats so the plan for this is a really standard timeline and process but essentially will kick off the nomination process just after the TSC call on August 10th keep that open for one week we will compile all the nominations into a PDF send that out to all of the contributors to ultimately vote voting will remain open for a period of one week and then we will announce that in the TSC call on the 24th from there of those 11 TSC members we will hold an election for chair again one week nomination period one week election process September 7th we will announce the chair and for all of these everyone that is currently on the TSC or TSC chair are eligible to run in this so from that very similar to last year we have a Google Doc of the lists of contributors and maintainers that are eligible to run in this so last year is a bit more of a manual process this year Tracy has done some great work being able to script some of this to make it a little more automated and easy but we do want folks over you know the next couple weeks to review this list if you are not on there and believe you should be please reach out to both Tracy and me and so that we can ensure that you are on the list of those eligible to nominate and run Tracy anything you want to add there and then anything from the technical community or TSC around this I'm sorry Todd Tracy rather Todd could just remind people what the criteria was to get on the list yep so it's detailed out in the charter so essentially the contributors are maintainer and anyone that's a contributor or maintainer so the charter defines contributor as anyone in the technical community that contributes code documentation or tech other technical artifacts into the code base code bases and maintainers are contributors that have the ability to commit code and contributions to a project's main branch on a hyperledger project and then so that's how the TSC defines them yeah and then more specifically the contributors are only for the last 12 months right so the last year so yeah and then the other thing that I'll add is just a call to also check the emails there were some duplicate email so people submitting probably from different machines with different email addresses I think there's still three out there now I got one response this morning so three out there who are duplicates that need to respond with which email they prefer and then I believe there's three that were no replies so they had set up their GitHub so that people couldn't see their email addresses so those people will obviously not be able to receive an email at the no reply email address so yeah I think that's that's really it so basically the process was to pull from the Git logs for the last year since August 1st I believe is what I chose and so it's all an automated process now hey Tracy have you fed that results into an author's file or like update the author's file if we if we have one or create one if we don't I have not although we can if if we do I'm not sure that any of the projects currently have an author's file but I can go check that day I'm just thinking it might be helpful for DCO purposes to to maintain an author's file does that need to be per project though yeah it would be per project for sure per repo I assume right yeah yes that makes sense I mean I have all the information because it's part of the script is to go through and pull that for each of the repos so it wouldn't be hard to do if we do wouldn't if we would like to do that yes I see vipin has a couple questions vipin for the first question the the TSC term was for one year the second question the active work group members so that was an exception to the way that the charter was written that was an exception that the TSC approved last year I think there are a couple factors in that one the main one was that the technical community was still relatively small at that point so it was just providing a slightly larger pool of folks eligible to nominate where we're looking at things right now it looks already like in excess of 300 people that are eligible to nominate any other questions comments thoughts on TSC annual election and we will review this each week and just remind everyone to check the list make sure you're on there make sure your data is all accurate so so vipin the question about eligible if you do not check in code so all of the contributors definitely came from checking in code there are a few maintainers out there who have not checked in code but are still considered maintainers and so because of the way the charters written those maintainers would also have a vote honestly it's not difficult to check in code there's so much to do we can just find something for the formality that's what you want to put in Tiki box we have so many things that you can just pick up and yeah if that helps yeah other questions if not I think we can move on all right so this one is really just a reminder I'll drop the most recent thread into the chat window but a reminder to have a have a read-through Chase's email and if you have any feedback please send that over the mailing list to get factored in and we'll bring somewhat more of a formal proposal back next week Tracy anything you want to add there kind of any reminders no I think you know the the last thread that I had the question to TSE members was really what information outside of automated metrics would be useful for you to understand the current health strength and diversity of projects so that's really the only question I'm asking is really to get your feedback so that we can either add things to the template or remove things from the template if that's necessary wasn't the frequency also discussion topic so we did talk about the the frequency last week but we did not come to any conclusion on that because it was more focused on you know what is the information that we need so all right well and I would encourage people to pile on that thread and then we'll pick it up hopefully next week and get it approved all right and then finally we have the fabric explorer the explorer proposal my my mouth is still on vacation thanks Todd all right our Robert or Daniel on the line so we traded emails with them late last night Robert or Daniel so if this was ready for for final I'm not sure this is ready for final you know approval anyways but I think it's probably worth starting the conversation and just to say you know I was I was curious as to why this was presented as a separate proposal rather than working this through the good thing Hyperledger Explorer team I don't know if it was a reboot you know a new code base and if so how we might want to reconcile that it kind of feel like maybe the two teams should work together I'm not sure what it am I I feel a little out of the dark so it's wondering if anyone has some light this is from from DDCC we had the same part too so part is on the line too but you know part on team from DDCC they're working on the explorer so we can work with the fabric explorer team right but they work with us yeah so the way that it came to me Molly is that you know they said they had this thing because they looked at Explorer you know the blockchain Explorer project and and that wasn't updated for for 1.0 and they wanted something and so they started project last month to develop something that could work with version 1.0 of fabric I suggested that they approach part of and and the other maintainers of the Explorer project because I mean it may be that you know we can start sort of new or you know that they could have a discussion about whether there should be a separate project but that's essentially exactly what I was kind of hoping would happen is that there would be a conversation amongst the maintainers of the Explorer project and this new proposal so that we can either come to agreement that we need you know to have separate projects or come to some sort of consensus agreement about how we can incorporate this new code into the existing code base or you know whatever the decision was but it just seemed that Explorer was not you know again to these maintainers I should say to these guys that are proposing it seemed like the Explorer wasn't being actively worked on it so they were looking for another answer so you know without them on the call I guess it's a little bit hard to have that conversation but I would encourage maybe email conversation over the proposal in a link about you know how we might want move this forward are we sure nobody is on the call actually I think we asked multiple times we can ask again yeah so it's Robert Fung and Daniel Wu are you here right yeah sorry that's okay it's always alright if we start talking about people when they're actually sitting there trying to speak up looking for the unmute button exactly but I also felt it was a bit weird I tried Chris was on vacation he passed it on to me I tried to give them some guidance and I wasn't completely sure what the proper way was for I mean in terms of like you know the process because they actually did two things I don't know if you guys saw that they also opened a JIRA ticket against Explorer where they essentially said hey we have new code we'd like to contribute and it's like they point to their GitHub repo and say just it's there and you should replace what you have by that that's kind of what this implies and so but I wasn't sure in terms of the process whether you know because it's if they we were to switch over like this does that imply any kind of TSC approval or is it left to the project itself to decide if they want to adopt this new code base in a way the project itself already exists if the maintainers of the blockchain explorer decides to switch over to the new code that's entirely the prerogative right I don't know that the TSC has to say that hi can you guys hear me yeah hi yeah so I just actually joined so I couldn't follow the discussion before so we would love to work with the guys who developed the public explorer we'll have to actually see see that it's we have the explorer that's ready for that work that can work with the public version one we had a little bit of a turn for the last and the recent times and and a little bit slow to make the progress so we are really happy to collaborate with the with the new team so as the next step should I connect kind of the two threads together the kind of the hyperledger explorer maintainers and the the folks who are specifically looking to propose this code would that help sorry can you repeat that again yeah would would you like me to connect on a email thread the the folks who submitted the explorer and the fabric explorer proposal and the hyperledger explorer team or does the hyperledger explorer maintainers want to reach out via the the proposal to the the fabric explorer folks so we'll we will reach out did you see we'll reach out to but you know if you guys can try from your behalf to the lol for the great but we'll try to reach out they can reach out to us if you guys can reach out to the help that's why I put in the chat the link to the JIRA item they opened in case you haven't seen it and that's an easy way to communicate with them I suppose I think Tracy having you sort of hope we're made between DTCC and others Chris you're afraid you're afraid at all we can't hear you I I was saying that anything Tracy can do to help all these two teams would be very welcome yeah I will do that so I'll start the communication Tracy and I'll keep CC also that way we basically we're all on the same page okay so again I mean Chris so that means from a TSC point of view we're done right we basically leave it to the to the team to figure out what to how to leverage this code yeah this is Brian I'd say I mean I don't know that we need to formally you know reject the proposal my hope is you know the teams talk and then the new Explorer proposal team just says oh okay we'll work with the existing Explorer team and withdraw the proposal that's probably the most graceful way to to see it handled hey Chris I have one comment so and this is a follow-up to Wipin's thing and I see that the many of the workgroup members are not listed in that that contribution list so you know it's just a I think if you have to consider the the health of the workgroups you know that that you should take into consideration if you know workgroups need to be continued or you know I think this one caught everybody by surprise that the workgroup members are not part of the contribution contributors list right so so just want to throw it out in terms of the the health of the workgroups itself right now and and I think the fact that they're not eligible in the in the contribution is sort of a short term notice so you know as Todd mentioned what we did last year was include the workgroups as a means of expanding the size of the community I do agree that the workgroups are important we were fairly lax though last year in collecting the names because we basically said anybody who was considered to be quote-unquote on the working group listed in the wiki would be included I think what we're looking for though is active measurable contribution now you know with code that's pretty straightforward it all goes into GitHub or Garrett and you can track emails and all that kind of stuff you know for a workgroup there are obviously people that are editing and contributing through the mailing list discussions and so forth I just I'd be worried about just including people that happen to join a call that's not contribute that's not a contribution that's just use dropping so you know certainly I'd be open to having a discussion in the TSC about expanding it to include active and by active something that we can measure you know through you know that they contributed to the editing of a Google Doc or you know for like the required the the white paper or the requirements or presented at you know the identity workgroup and so forth and architecture working groups but I would I would hope that we would maybe come to agreement that it would be something that was active as opposed to passive that makes sense I don't know Brian what what are your thoughts nothing to add I feel the same way being able to measure that kind of contribution is harder than measuring you know I'm open to it just we need I want to make sure that we try to retain the the duocracy side of the project the basis for voting I agree with that I guess I have a philosophical disconnect here for a technical steering committee you know I view the working groups a sort of out there setting some of the direction and staring things and contributors of the people implementing you know a lot of times what comes out of the technical steering committees and maybe I just I'm not viewing it correctly no I mark I think I think yes you're right what I'm saying though is active right but when I say contribution I'm not necessarily saying code right again contribution could be documentation and so forth but in the context of the working groups I think what I was trying to say was people that are actively contributing to the forward movement of a working group right you know people that are actually providing content into the white paper people that are providing active contribution into your work group for instance that and by that I mean that there there's you know as Brian said it's a duocracy of people that are doing things not just people that happen to dial into a call that's not doing anything that that's the distance I'm trying to draw okay yeah and I agree with that I just and you know it's harder to measure and maybe we need to work on a way to measure that yeah and Todd remind me but I think last year we sort of left it to the work group chairs to decide who contributed isn't there yeah that's accurate so you know okay well I mean I would be it would have to be a charter thing if we wanted to make this thing permanent but I'd be willing to entertain a proposal from somebody to expand the list to work group active participation and you know if we can find some measurable yardstick that we can use to decide whether something was active versus passive that would be ideal okay we also have staff now so I guess the other thing we could do is we could ask Tracy to maybe look at the mailing lists and the Google Docs and see if there's a way of identifying who's actively contributed to a couple of comments on this Chris couple of comments when I look at the contributors and maintenance that Tracy has created they are all specific to specific projects so there is no heading for anything that is supra project meaning like for example if you have been a member of the TSC who never checked in a single bit of court but participated heavily your name would not be there or any of the working groups guys I mean there there is no place here for anything that is not project specific at least I don't see it because everything is like Iroha composers cello you know so on and so forth so so there's that the second point is that you're worried about free riders I understand you know but free riders can be even in code because if you check in two lines of code and hence you become eligible it is you know so what what are you know how are you going to measure that I I do agree with you that people who are just calling in do not deserve to be among the list of contributors but if they do contribute and that too frequently then they do need to be on the on the list because the spirit of the charter is for contribution and the measurement method that you've chosen is to look at the GitHub repo and see the people who have checked checked stuff in which is which is fine I mean but then you know if you if you think that that doesn't completely capture the real contributors to this project then you have to think about how you would include them because otherwise it wouldn't you know otherwise it wouldn't be fair yeah so so I hear what you're saying and yes there are people on this list that Tracy you know pulled together that you know basically spell check the comma right there's some of that the reality of it is though is that even that is a contribution I mean it proves the quality of the code base and that's important I would also highlight the fact that there's absolutely nothing stopping anybody from doing just that and you know in fact you know this is not an uncommon thing and other other open source initiatives like open sac I can say with authority that that happens a lot but the reality of it is is that even if you're doing nothing more than spell checking and correcting a typo in a comment someplace or in documentation it still needs to go through the process of submit a Garrett change or you know a GitHub change and you open an issue and you work it through the whole sausage grinder and get it reviewed and approved and so forth it's still a contribution so you know I look I I agree that you know we should find a way that we can again incorporate you know include those of us who are contributing meaningfully through the or the higher level the super you know sort of project level stuff that you talked about and I totally agree I I do think though that again it's not like there isn't an opportunity for everybody to go in and do just what I said you know just go through and spell check something I wonder I mean is that really valuable though I mean I don't think I actually think I know whether it's valuable or not it's not the question at hand here if somebody cares enough that they want to be able to vote then they can do that is all I'm saying yeah but you're forcing some fake you know activity basically just no I don't I don't I don't agree with that or no I don't agree with that at all I mean I think you know somebody could look at all the different changes in in Garrett or GitHub and say that this one is meaningful and this one is not really we're gonna do that but we're getting lost in the weeds here but at the same time the vote in the end will you know will be the selector right I mean if if all you do is you know do some kind of crappy comment check-in just to be on the list and nobody else knows you you don't really contribute you're not gonna be voted in the vote is going to be the key factor so from that point of view I feel like you know maybe we are being too strict and just you know selecting based on repo contributions because if somebody like if you were somebody who does that it's real contribution and you would not appear on the list I thought Tracy so yeah it does not include wiki yeah dipping is trying to get in here so hold on a second the main thing is not whether somebody who's put in a comment gets into the contribution list but whether somebody who is really contributed is not in the list okay like for example I'm not in the list all right you know I've participated in so many calls and I've been the chair of the identity working group for eight or nine months and I'm not in the list and if you tell me that that is not enough that I have to go in and check in some comment in order to be on the list I I mean I don't frankly want to want to do that you know I understand including make make a saying that he's not on the list either and my and in my case I hand algorithms and documents off to the rest of the intel team and they do all of the check-ins for the stuff that I'm doing so you know I'm not gonna get credit for it but literally I think really so many contributors to this project because if you look at who are who are actively elaborated you have the architectural team you have strategy and direction well of course that includes Brian but certainly the TSE and issues that have to be addressed so literally if you look at the active contributors it's really all of us who collaborate on these calls honor honor you might say a measured frequency that we're always there we're always provided support we're always looking for best practices best ways strategy direction to move the entire project forward it's never just down to code and the maintainers and who checks in the piece of code it's much bigger than and therefore all credibility is based on the entire team of collaborators so it has to be done by consensus we have to see amount ourselves different and others maybe myself sometimes are active contributors and we should be on this and that's how from an open source perspective we mark the scope of our you might say maturity on that project and give them might say support to all of us who are who are contributing so I will reiterate what I said before I would be happy to entertain a proposal I mean somebody has to go back and actually come up with a proposal I'm not saying nobody is saying that we don't want to count those people that are contributing in ways that aren't measurable necessarily by virtue of code so I think I just want to sort of put you know nip that in the bud because that is not what's going on here however there are there is a charter the charter has been written down for a year and a half or more and you know it shouldn't be a surprise now again last year we did some things and we explicitly approved a proposal that you know expanded the list and we could do that again and I'm asking for a proposal not now because I think it needs to be written down and thought about and I'm sure that we can all come to a consensus agreement that this is something we should do so I don't think that arguing about it is really going to help us here is all I'm saying I'm just I'm saying I think we should entertain a proposal Brian seemed to be open to that as well so that's where I would suggest that we are is that we look for somebody to come up with a proposal now I'm happy to sort of you know if somebody wants to step up and say hey I'll do that I'd love to hear that and I think we can use this time to brainstorm a little bit on this so I think I'm completely comfortable with the conversation to date you know the voices have been kind of raised on on some of these ideas I might suggest that the simplest way to do this is to say any any chartered working group the leader of that working group or leadership somehow we want to define that I you know made the middle list of names of those who have contributed to that project in some substantive way to be considered you know for inclusion in the vote for the TFC and you know that that's that seems like the simplest way of making sure that you know the non-technical contributions that are harder to algorithmically determine get measured I would get counted for and included yeah I would also like to suggest that that's that super project that that vipin was talking about that we probably could do something there with the working groups right where we do have output from those working groups because I ideally that's what working groups are intended to do right is to generate some sort of either white paper or architecture documents or those sorts of things that those really should be checked in somewhere right visible for anybody to see and could be then part of that you know who is a contributor right because I mean I completely agree that there's you know the the leaders of these working groups are contributing right it's just that sometimes it's hard to see that unless we have some place to go look and so is there a place that we can create for the working groups to really you know generate their output yes Tracy this is why I was saying that it's an operational issue because by custom we have put the documents in in google docs for collaboration it is and that's how people collaborate not by checking in and checking out documents from github at least so far in most of the working groups that I have been involved in I don't know whether any other working group has done the github check-in check-out process so you know it that's why I'm saying it is an this is a hidden bunch of contributors I am with you in that that it should be really the people who really contributed not just some random people who showed up to you know to a call once in a while that's not what we are talking about here so the looks like the two proposals out here are one is you know that we allow the working group leads and project maintainers to contribute additional names and the other is to move some of those documents into into github and actually check them in but it's not it's not github it's measurable that's the key thing if you if you collaborate around a google doc the entire history is there and you should be able to see who that was unless they logged in as anonymous so then the process should be changed of measuring who the contributors are it should look at the google docs that belong to the working groups to see who are the people who actually we we cannot change that that's a board thing we can make a proposal that is taken up to the board to make that change is all I'm saying so I'm not disagreeing but I think we have to be cognizant of the fact that we can't just change the rules we can we can expand it again on a one-time basis and we can ask the board to address this as a charter change but it's in the charter so we'll go up and work on get we'll go off and work on writing up a proposal right so who wants to take the lead on this this is brian i'll put something simple uh out on the list and certainly welcome others to comment on that and feedback and then it might be something so our next governing board meeting is Monday so if we were to get a change the charter we'd have to try to get that by email consent in time for the vote coming up so let me look and see what could be done within the charter but but you know perhaps a more expensive view just for that list so it wouldn't require a charterman but I will look at that on our side but meanwhile I'm happy to post a proposed modification and don't want to keep others from you know doing the same thing on the tsc mailing list and then we'll see if we can converge on that list on a on a on a particular proposal that we all like as we think about proposals just keep in mind that if we can automate the proposal it's so much better than having to manually have to get the information so just think through your proposal and see if it meets those criteria um if not is there a way for it to you by the way maybe maybe not fully automated but maybe not nothing it may be helpful if somebody wants to put his name forward they can actively if he's not already he or she are not already in the list maybe they can just point to the shared document that they already have and we just tick that box uh I know it's it's semi-automatic but I don't know if we're going to write VBA scripts now to go through google docs or something I don't know if it's going to be helpful just saying yeah it's probably a handful of people right and we know who contributed anyway from me to to to so many others not not even a leading of a leader of the working group but there's some active participants that we probably want to put in there forward and are not on the call now just saying so I think we have a plan so let's let's do that and then hopefully we can have quorum next week if we're going to vote on something that expands within the content you know within the within the charter all right well everybody gets 10 minutes back all right thank you everyone thanks everybody have fun