 Welcome everyone to the October 13th technical oversight committee call. As you are all aware, a couple things that we must divide by the first is the antitrust policy notice that is currently displayed on screen. And the second is our code of conduct. Which is linked specifically in the agenda. So as far as announcements go today, we have the standard announcement the hyper ledger dev weekly developer newsletter goes out each Friday. If you have anything that you'd like to be included in that, please leave a comment on the wiki page since link in the agenda. The second announcement that you may have already noticed some changes happening but the charter changes have been approved. And we are now the technical oversight committee, not the technical steering team. So I have the charter linked here in the agenda if you want to see the specific changes that were included there were a few other changes besides that meeting that happened. Any other announcements that anybody has. Okay. So if there's no other announcements, we do have the outstanding Ursa reports, I did send a reminder on the discord channel. It was a week ago. And we're still waiting on that. I also included links to the reports that had basically hadn't had a whole lot of reviews that had happened. I did notice that most of these have been almost completely reviewed by everybody but if you still are outstanding please do have a look at those particular reports. The only one that I saw that had any sort of question was a question that I had on the firefly one related to the organizational diversity of the maintainers. I have not yet seen an answer to that so I don't know that we have anybody here from Firefly today. I don't see anybody on the participant list from Firefly so we'll wait to get that answered on the report. But Tracy, I thought the report actually says that it's all the maintainers are from Colado. Did you say that. I wonder if that changed after the fact. Yeah, I wasn't sure. Okay, yes, it does say that. So I guess the question is answered. We will assume that I didn't miss it or maybe I did miss it and either way it's there now so thanks for that. Yeah. Yeah, I saw your question and then I thought, but I think it's answered and I had the same thought maybe they changed it didn't say in response to your comment, but so it's there anyway. Make it done. Any other questions that anybody has on the reports. And then I saw you come off mute, but we couldn't hear you if you are speaking. No, you're very faint. I saw Jim Zane here at the pond and I think you said you have a flight today. So I think that's why Firefly is not on the call. Okay, yeah, I did see Jim's regrets since somewhere I think it may have been this point so thanks for that. Okay, any other questions on the reports. So if there's no other questions on the report, we do have the fabric in the cactus reports that are doing today. So we'll look forward to seeing those show up and we'll be including those on the on the agenda for next week. So the only thing that I have for topics today is the TOC election for that is upcoming. Before we before we get there are there any other topics that anybody would like to add to the agenda. Okay, so let's take a look at the TOC election for 2022. We'll copy in the charter here into this document, the composition as we probably recall though there'll be six individuals that will be elected by the maintainers of the projects, and then five appointees that will be appointed forward to make up the 11 TOC numbers for next for the next term. So that's directly from the charter as it stands today. So I have put together this document along with the help of Brian and me. Just exactly what this process and timeline is going to look like. So if we look at the nomination process and timeline. I'm hoping that we can start this process next week and have people nominate themselves through the end of October to run for the TOC. I'm hoping this timeline works is kind of quick turnaround but I'm hoping we can manage that. As far as what it was required we need to gather the GitHub IDs for the active maintainers and the active contributors. We're going to be doing some changes to our, what was once called our voters check site it's now an eligibility check site that will allow you to see if you're eligible to run or and or eligible to vote in the upcoming TOC election. So we have standard templates that are the need to be updated to reflect the 2022 dates, and we need to send out communication to people to let them know that the TOC nomination is happening. So I have a reminder sort of communication to ensure that people are aware that the timeline is ending, and then the nominations would close end of day Pacific to get the list of nominees. So any questions on this nomination process, or any concerns with what you see in a written here. I have a question that second thing there. I thought I thought part of the plan was to avoid I think to do this so I'm a bit surprised that it's there, building this list of active contributors. Yeah, so if we go back up to the charter. I think it's four dot a dot I, it says that individuals who are active within within the scope of the hyperledger foundation and who have nominated themselves for the TSC. So I guess the, the challenge was how do we determine who's active. And the thought was that the active people are the people who have contributed. I think that's always been a concern. But yeah we do still need to figure out if people who nominate themselves should be nominating themselves. So wait, let me make sure I understand this article for the active contributor is to do what it's those who are eligible to run for the talk right. So for the eight I says that individuals who are active within the scope of the hyperledger foundation and who have nominated themselves in the TSC. Right. So I think that's what we need to be clear it's like active contributors can run and maintainers can vote. That's correct. But so I, yeah, I was wondering I mean if you know the staff should really go through the process of building this list of active contributor, which may be very time consuming as opposed to just check that the people get nominated or qualify. And it may sound like it's the same, but I don't think it is the same because you don't need to, you know, go out of your way to figure out the whole list of possible active contributors, rather than just checking specific individuals whether they qualify or not. But it's a detail in the implementation but you know again I thought one of the motivations of the change was to try to simplify the process. And I'm afraid that this is the worst part that was from the previous process. If we carry it over. We've kind of missed the boat somewhere there. But I see Daniel as his end up so I'll shut up. So I kind of agree that we shouldn't gather the contributors is going to gather the maintainers it should be a fairly easy thing to maintainers with any project. But I think we could flip it kind of Arnold saying if you nominate yourself to serve on the TSC. Maybe we have a question in there. Please describe your contributions to hyperlider or provide the proof that's part of their self nomination. Good. I think that's right. Yes. Yep. Sorry, I'm hyperlider community. I share my screen. Sure. So I have this day zero where I've been running scripts that download the GitHub event logs every day back to 2016. And I have scripts in here that are running to extract the people that have done anything. So that's fairly already automated. I agree with the rewarding that was proposed. You know, I also have this maintainer list that gathers all the maintainer files. Once a day, and then I have a list of the maintainers from those. So those lists already exists, the list of maintainers already exist. And I also have a. I have 60 something open bugs against repos that don't have a maintainers file. So it's, you know, for the most part it's completely automated. But I would like that warning change to make that happen. Okay, so the recommendation is that in the nominee email we change it to say, please include your contributions to the hyperlider foundation in the posture. I think that works for me. Any comments or concerns on that? Yeah, maybe we probably can hint that maybe simply providing your github, you know, I deal with the activity is good enough. For most people, I think that will do it and then the edge cases that may be, may require a bit more but David and I discussed this earlier. For the previous election, we had, I think, 22 nominations we had maybe another half dozen people that requested to run that had no activity. So it's fairly easy to to gate that what I don't want to do is because a contributor is defined as people who do stuff in the wiki and stuff like that. It isn't like it was before where we had to check a million emails. So, yeah, let's change that to see nominee wording and I think that's going to be much much easier. Okay, I just updated this page. Actually, it'll come to you but if you wouldn't mind refreshing. Yeah, scroll down. So I added the contributions that I have had to the hyperledger foundation and kind of goes off the page here on the email itself. It basically says the country. I don't know why it's not showing quite right but anyway, the contributions that I have had to the hyper foundation in the past year is that that that let them fill it in. Right. So, yeah, but see this is I mean we don't want to have people go through a whole archaeological task either they only need one thing that qualifies right. Okay, do we want to include a checklist. I mean, that's why I'm trying to, I don't want to mislead people into saying they need to go back for the whole year and look at all the things they've done and compile all of this. This is not what we're asking for either. So we need to be careful the way we phrase the question. They just need to provide some evidence that they qualify, and it could just be, you know, is my GitHub idea and you can go look at all the PRs and see, and you know that I've done something along those lines. If I mean I suspect that there are many cases where we already know the answer. And it's just, they may be cases where rice is, I've never heard of that person who are they what are they doing, and they may look a bit beyond that but so for the script emits this stuff. And this this is for the maintainers not the people who do things, but you know on a per repo basis, I can look in here and see, like, what did somebody do. So the, the check website is going to look at this this list of people that have done something. And the script yet to automatically update this to. So when when I did this by hand, the, the number of people that had done a qualifying activity this year to run were around 1900. So I think that's going to get almost everybody. So what I will do, like, soon is get that list into the voter website. So people can check. I said voter, the, the TOC check my status website. And that'll be something that gets updated once a day by get of actions or whatever. So the further edge case would be, you know, if they don't have a get of ID, they haven't done anything. That's where it's going to be. We'll have to go look in the wiki or something of that nature. Okay. So the other thing here. I'm making one last change to this page but if you wouldn't mind my question again Sean sorry about that. I included kind of the please check all that apply of what it is that you've done that would qualify you to run for the TFC election. It's, I don't know if it's a complete list but I did include the other and please provide details so maybe this will address the concerns or no of not having to say here's 100,000 minutes that I've done. Okay. That's fine. Okay, any other comments and on the nomination process or the timeline here. So then for the election process, the voting period for the six TFC members are from November 1 through November 30. So, we will obviously announced the slave candidates. We're going to use a new new tool this year called Helios voting. It's a tool that has been used by other Linux foundation projects. It uses your GitHub ID in order to allow for voting and since all of the voters must be active maintainers. And that shouldn't be a problem for people. And then the email will be sent out to those eligible voters on how they will cast their ballots ballots will be cast. The election will close at 1159 p.m. US Pacific time on November 30. I believe this tool sends out reminders so there's no sort of reminder email that has to be manually done. It's automated through the tool. And then that vote will determine that the six elected TFC members whose, whose names will be removed from the appointment vote. So kind of the election timeline and process. So, Tracy, I don't have a question I have a comment or a little observation I wanted to share with everybody. This is the first time we have this kind of setup where there's a number of seats that actually get selected and the others are appointed by the board. You know, I just want to say obviously I cannot speak on behalf of the board, and I cannot predict how they will actually do it. But I can share from my experience in another LF foundation where there is a similar setup, the way they do it, unless there is a need to do any different, they will basically continue down the list of the election results. As long as they're happy with what the mix that this gives them, they will just do that they're not going to bother going for other people running another election or any of this. They will pick the people from, you know, we have been running running the election anyway, because that's kind of like by default, if that gives us the right mix they are hoping for that makes it very easy for them to do. Okay, that's extremely interesting. So, I guess, one of the things that I was thinking about here on is that I don't know that we should be distinguishing and letting people know whether that voted in or appointed, if you will. So I wasn't expecting to share the results, except internally within the hydro ledger staff. The actual results of the vote. But if I hear what you're suggesting you're suggesting that that those vote results would also be shared with the governing board members so that they could determine whether or not they want to choose the next five or choose the other. So that's interesting. I mean, that's the way it was done in open as you said, I, you know, again, I mean every foundation can decide to run it whichever way they want. But they, they, in the case of open as they announced, the people had been elected. And they say okay there is, I forget it's three more seats or four more seats will be pointed by the board and the board say okay these are the people but I actually, I don't know, maybe public to be honest, but I know for a fact that you know they just took the next people on the list. Yeah, they were happy with the mix that did give them so they were like okay that satisfies us anybody they had a vote quickly within the board to say, yeah, happy with that. Good. And they announced the next, you know, people had been appointed by the board as being also members of the attack and that's it. So, again, I mean, you know, they made it may go differently here, but based on my experience the staff will tend to say hey, this is how we do it elsewhere. You might want to consider doing it that way too. And again, I mean they will exercise their right to override the results if they feel like this is not giving them the right mix which is the whole point of this, this feature right. They will say no, it just gives in there's too many people from the same project or same company, we're better going down further into the list of but most likely they won't, you know, they will stop from there at least, right, because they know these are people who have initiated themselves and are willing to do the job to start with, which is easier than going to fish for other people and say, hey, you didn't run for the election but really we'd like you to be on this on this talk so that there is diversity. Again, I mean they made very well do it. But, you know, it seems pretty clear to me that they will try to find the easy way first to fill those seats. Yeah, we specifically, I made sure that the based on our conversations previously that the charter specifically says that the governing board has to choose from the nominees, but they cannot go outside of the list of evidence. Because of the whole, like, okay, you didn't sign up. Maybe you didn't want to do the job and now you're being forced to do a job that you didn't really want to do right. I do think it's an interesting sort of perspective on and I think we have a governing board meeting on Monday, and I think I'll bring that up. I don't think Daniela on this call but I'll try to talk to Daniela before the call just to let her know that I'll bring you into this election process. So that there can be some discussion about what the governing board wants to do whether or not they want the results from the vote or whether they want to start with the list of nominees minus the the six elected to see numbers. Yep. Sounds good. Okay, other other comments or questions on the election process itself. Okay, so then with the appointment process this may change based on that conversation with the governing board but the intent was to take the TSE nominee needs exclude the six elected to see members and have the governing board vote. There was a period of about a week, which was what was suggested by men. We had, I had this much longer but she suggested just a short period for the governing board. So, we'll, I guess, the intent was to use open vote, which is what we've used in the past for the TSE elections it's what the governing board uses for any sort of elections that they have. The process really is to send out an email and a reminder email and to have the election close on the ninth. The ninth is a Friday so I did say that on the 12th, an email would be sent to the TSE mailing list announcing the newly elected and appointed members. And then that group of people would elect the, the new TSE chair and vice chair. Now I gave a long period for that I don't know that it's going to take that long, but this is obviously the holiday period and so there are vacations and things that I expect people to be on and so I wanted to make sure that we gave time on the front and at the end of those holidays to ensure that everybody had a chance to express their desire for the TOC chair and vice chair. And that as far as the election goes, it'll be very similar to what we've done in the past where there's an election for the chair, and then the person who gets the second highest votes would get the vice chair. It depends on the appointment process or that chair, vice chair election, quite true today. Either that means things are good or things are so bad that you don't want to comment. We love it. We love it. If I may, a little question. Okay, so I had some small contributions to Eroha, and I was actively supporting with all the questions people had. So, even with that, am I allowed to participate? You are definitely allowed to nominate yourself, given the contributions that you've had. As far as the voting process, I guess the question is, Victor, are you listed as a maintainer in the maintainer's files in Eroha? He is. So if you are listed as a maintainer that you would be allowed to vote, assuming that you've had active contributions, which it sounds like you have. Other questions or comments on the election process? And they don't have to be on this page. It's like to be very similar to what Victor just had. I have one. Who is eligible to vote? And basically, what happens if people decide not to vote? Is there a quorum that needs to be reached? Okay. So, Sean, if you wouldn't mind going back up to the top where we have the charter. So 4.a. Reading two. Elections will be administered and overseen by the TOC. All maintainers for similar technical role in the case of supportive projects, which we don't have any currently supportive projects. So all maintainers of any technical project who have been active in the past year will elect six individuals. So if you've been an active maintainer in the last year, then you will be eligible to vote. You are not required to vote, but you are eligible to vote. We've never had any sort of quorum for people to vote, and we still don't have any sort of forum for people to vote. Excellent. Thank you. Other questions, comments? Peter. No problem. For me, just a quick thumbs up. I think this is a good idea and I'm happy that they are working on it. And I'll be curious to see how it goes. Thanks, Peter. Anything else that anybody would like to add on the TOC election? Okay. So that was the end of the official agenda. Is there anything else that anybody would like to cover? Yes. So this is related to the security task force. I know I missed the previous call, but are not caught me up. I mean, this week and then he updated the discussions that he had with heart and then he also brought in some of the interesting conversations from open as itself. The tools that have been worked upon within that foundation. And there will be few explorations going on in the coming days from by the task force, which will come up with as proposals here. There is one pending action item that that is overdue for now. I know I promised it soon after the, the global forum event, but I could not do it. That is related to how do we, the security process itself, right? The reviewing, how can somebody come and report and what are the actions to be taken by each team. It's again listed under open SSF. We had one deep conversations on that when I think few weeks ago. And the heart had suggested that we should probably incorporate the ones that are non controversial. That's again something that I'll be putting up definitely this week. That's an overdue item. Okay, just an update on what's happening. And I do request everyone to please participate in the task force. Thank you everyone for the update. Anything else that anybody would like to cover. So, before I let you go, I know you guys all want to get out of here but before I do let you go one of the things that I wanted to bring up was our backlog items that we do have still open one is on the security process which is being handled the other security and the other one is is related to the projects who have not submitted their TSE quarterly project updates. And moving them to a dormant state after a TSE discussion and possible votes. I know that there were a number of comments on this back when it was originally open. We haven't made any sort of further progress on what we want to do specifically with this. And with this particular issue whether or not we want to implement this whether or not we want to close it and I thought maybe we could have a quick discussion on any thoughts that people might have on this particular backlog item. I'd really like to see if we could address it before the end of this term. One way or the other, be it close it or take action on it. Just as a reminder, the idea was to for those who had not put in their quarterly project updates to have the TSE vice chair reach out to the projects when they miss submitting the project updates. We were either reaching out to the last emitter of the project quarterly update reaching out via the project mailing list and reaching out via the projects official chat channel. And then we're unable to reach someone for an entire quarter. We would have a discussion within the technical oversight committee to determine if we should vote on moving the project to a dormant state. I, I know this came up when we had some projects who hadn't submitted their, I think it was Burl actually when they hadn't submitted their report for probably about a half a year. And so this was something that I created as a potential action that we could take. And I want to see if we want to, you know, implement this or if we think this is not needed. Any thoughts. Right. I think I kind of remembered this discussion where it got diverted to another discussion as well where people started asking should we even make this decision because project teams could be busy on doing some things. And then there was other kind of discussion that went into asking if report is what we expect from each of the project every quarter then what what is it that we expect from each of that report can be extracted. For time being and then ask project teams to update when they, when they can. But then the other thinking that I also have is we will be reaching out to project maintenance and if they're not submitting quarterly report, or at least they should be responding back to the question that to see members would ask them. If they're not responding to the questions then it's it's equivalent to that project is not responding to any concerns with their project, right. So if they're not responding to the to say itself how can they respond. So we can imagine like what kind of response structure would they have for new contributors or somebody who is new to the project. So there should be at least some response it cannot be that project has not responded to any of the questions itself that definitely is a concern. Yes, completely agree. It's a big concern. We want people to be able to get responses from the project. If they have issues or they're looking to make contributions or no. I mean, I, my gut reaction is, we don't need to add anything because this is, this is why we have this quarterly reports and it was to, you know, make sure that, you know, projects are still going on. You know, I have a heartbeat, so to speak. And so it seems to me that this is a natural, you know, possible outcome of a project not responding not filling out the quarterly reports. And I don't know that we need to add a special rule stating that. But I was trying in the back to go to the website. I would, it depends on whether we specify the way we specify how you enter dormant state, basically exclude the talk doing this. Then we would have to change it to say, oh, one of the possibilities is the talk has not heard from the project, such as, you know, not receiving any quarterly reports, and therefore the talk might decide to move the project to dormant. But I think, in a sense, we've seen this actually happen already without that rule, right. We've seen in the cases of the existing projects we had, like, burrow, and where we knew, you know, every time they had to like, you know, ask them repeatedly hey where's your report where's your report and then eventually, they don't have that bit that okay forget it. We can keep doing this. So, I, yeah, my, my, you know, again, I think I don't feel like this is necessary in general I think we shouldn't just keep adding more rules for the sake of it, and this is strictly needed. And I don't project enter the dormant state when the normal functions are suspended or so down for a period of time. The TSE decides to move a project to or from the dormant state upon request. And I'll just not say who requests that. I just said upon request. So I think, you know, if the TSE is requesting it then the TSE, obviously, that determination as to whether or not it makes sense to go to the dormant state. So, it sounds like we want to close this issue. Any, anybody want to see this issue made open and that we take action on it. Then we will close this issue since nobody wanted to take action. I think we should close but put a statement saying something along the lines that you know the current rules already allow us to do this. Okay. I will do that. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Any other items to discuss today. Well, we will then close out the meeting and thank you all for attending. Hopefully next week we will be talking about the non credits project. Steven is attempting to get that ready for us. We also do have the prune lab that would like to present to us at some point. I'll decide whether or not that's next week depending on whether Steven's ready for us next week or not. I don't want to do both of them at the same time. So we do have both of those on the backlog of agenda items for upcoming meetings. So with that, I will close today's meeting and wish you all a good week. Thank you.