 So good morning. Good evening. Good afternoon. Today's agenda, we have a reminder that the call for participations for the Global Forum close out on the 13th. So get your IAS out and submit proposals for the Global Forum. It should be good. We can do a quick recap of the answer in Hackfest and just our reminder for registration for the October 3rd and 4th Hackfest in Montreal that's going to be following the members' summit also in Montreal. The time in the process, okay. I didn't catch the road part. All right, I have to look at that. So then we have quarterly updates from Quilt and Calliper. Is that correct, Todd? Did we get those? Just checking if Calliper came in overnight, one second. Yeah, no Calliper yet, unfortunately. Okay. But we do have Quilt. We do have the PSWG. And is Adrian or somebody on the forum? Yeah. Okay. Great. And then we will, oh, is Mark on for performance and scale? Yeah, doesn't sound... Awesome. He's on. Right. Cool. So, any other items for the agenda? If not, I think we can dive into the Amsterdam Hackfest recap. So I thought it was good. I think we still need to work a little bit on what the right sort of format is for day zero, how to get people involved in up and running. I think this, in the past we had set it up so that we had pitches that gave an overview. And then we set aside, I don't know, an hour and a half, two hours or something like that after lunch. And then we had breakouts. And so if you wanted to do sawtooth, you could do sawtooth if you wanted to do fabric, if you wanted to do indie, whatever, you could go into various breakouts. And the problem there was that some people wanted to do more than one, but they had to choose. So this time, I think it ended up being that everybody had more to present than they had time to get people up and running. And we didn't do the thing that I had suggested a few weeks back. And that's a bad on me as well, I didn't do it. And I was the one that suggested it was getting people sort of pre bootstrapped before the hack fest itself. So I don't know, you know, when we think about doing Montreal, Todd and Brian, if you're on, I think we need to, I think we need to work on how we play that. Anyway, so I thought I thought it was generally good. I thought the the first day was absolutely jam packed. We had staying room in the back only. And I think each of the presentations was well received. And people got a lot of a lot out of it. I don't know what others think, but that was that was my impression of day zero. And then I think day two and three, I was in the main tent for most of the time. Or day one and day two is the case maybe. But I thought that there was a lot of really good discussion cross project discussions and a lot of those happened outside of the sort of the formal all meetings, I think. But that was that was my impression. So I don't know if others that were present on a weekend. Yeah, I was not Alex from ceramics. So I was not there on the first day. So I cannot comment, but the second and the third day were really great. Going forward, what I think we can do is to improve is maybe have agenda upfront, especially for the people that they're reasoning from from the bigger companies, because usually they need approvals and they need to show what the agenda is what they will be listening to, to their bosses to to get approvals. So that might help us get even more people for that part. And I agree some people actually did complain that they want to listen to several sessions at the same time. So maybe if we can arrange recordings, it would be great. I'm not sure if that's possible, but for the future so that people can review the sessions that they could not attend. But just for participants, probably, or I don't know. I wish that's a that's a good idea. I get another practicality of it. But I think now that the the agenda is published now, again, some of it is locked down, you know, closer to the event itself. But we certainly had the event agenda for day zero, more than a month in advance was finalized. And there was most of the sessions were people have been posting. So, you know, I mean, it's an unconference. And so as a result, it's not like a formal conference where we have, you know, call for papers and that kind of thing. So, I don't know. I didn't I didn't think there was a lack of attendance. I mean, it was No, no, no, I'm not saying that so sessions work well, well, visited, but but still maybe some people maybe there could be more people. I'm not sure. But yeah, yeah. Todd, do you know what the attendance figures were? Or anybody for that matter? Yeah, on on the the day zero, we had about 135, which was the most we've seen ever. And then for the formal hackfest, the days one and two, I think the first day we had around 120, 125. And then the second day, around 110, 115. So really phenomenal numbers for that, the most we've seen in the past two and a half years. Yeah, that's great that the numbers held out through the days. And there was actually quite a bit going on in Amsterdam. There was a blockchain expo conference that was nearby. And then there was a rethink trust downtown by Central Station. Everybody was commuting. It was funny. Yeah, right. Like, you know, you walk around the city and say, What are you doing here? Oh, no, I mean, another conference. What? Yeah. So it was really funny. It's a small place, right? So in the center. We'll have to do planning better, though, because there was no food on Friday. Not not by the hackfest itself, but in town. What was that? What's that all about? No food Fridays? Yeah. Anyway, anybody else? Jonathan, anybody else who's on who is I was in now because I was going to these like three events, right? So and some of us like Chris, we were invited to speak it, you know, within trust. And no, it was good. It just it's interesting to see that I think my feedback is mostly that people begin to realize that they need more enterprise is stuff. And many people are coming to us to see, but how are you doing this? So even when they're trying to do some new stuff with tokens, they're still trying to see what what has been out there. And I think we still have. I don't know if it's still I think that we have a good reputation entails the kind of the number of people like high, highly academic research organizations and institutions like Intel IBM research, etc, etc, that are highly involved with hyper ledger. So I feel that people do look up to us in many ways. Yeah, I don't know what the solution how to be like six places in one go and when stuff is overlapping. Yeah, but no, no, I think I think we're doing good on like, we did attract people. What was it's not a criticism is actually like good feedback is people that came to hyper ledger knew exactly what they're coming for. But when I went to rethink trust, when I went to all the conference, even when I'm a speaker, I'm not always sure what kind of audience I have. I didn't know they're more technicals that the investors, it was only at least we were very coherent and I think I actually think that we do do a very good job there, because we people know what they're coming for and we can provide the goods that they're expecting. So yeah, so that's not one. So others so hard. So listen, this is Nathan. Yeah, the indie project was able to get a lot of hacking done this hack fest, which is really nice. We had a few groups that came with with plans on what it is they were going to build. And we were able to get through quite a bit of design and coordination work that is a lot faster to do in person when we have the right people present. And I would also echo kind of some of the same sentiments that Chris said about the day zero, it seemed like there was a lot more presenting and not a lot of getting things set up. I know we we've set up kind of a special hack fest page with all the prerequisite steps to get going on indie. And as we watched everyone kind of go through the fabric and saw tooth demos, we noticed a lot of people were just kind of sitting and listening as opposed to kind of following along and working on things. So we kind of reshuffled our presentation to do a little bit more talking because we thought that that kind of fit the audience and how the audience was responding to the presenters a little bit better. But something we could do to make that that day a little bit more interactive and get people running more things on their on their own machines, I think would be really helpful. So, you know, I'm not exactly sure what the right mechanism for that is. Some of the I asked some of the folks who are in the indie sessions later on, where we did some more hands on work kind of what their thoughts were. And in some ways they almost they said things like maybe we should split out into into more than one group. And some of the things that we actually tried at some hackfest previously. So I'm not sure exactly where that leaves us other than, you know, I'm going to try to do do more to make it an interactive session where we actually get someone started working with some code. When we try it again, and we'll see see how that goes. And I think if all of us who are doing project presentations do that same thing, we might be able to shift the culture of that day zero, perhaps just a little bit away from listening to a presentation into, you know, what's broken on my setup. Can you help me? Yeah. Having plans upfront as to who was working on what things before the hackfest started in terms of getting people to seed the agenda with the topics they were interested in was helpful. And though that also created the problem that was mentioned before where there was a lot of overlap in conflict between, you know, people wanted to be in two or three different places at once. I know I didn't get a chance to go to a dozen things that I would really like to participate in and learn more about because I had already planned on running things to help people get the hacking done that they wanted to get done. So I think we'll always see some of that tension going forward. And I think that's a high quality problem. And I'm not disappointed or upset by that. Hart. Yeah, can you guys hear me? I can't know. Sorry, I've had some microphone issues. Yeah, I wanted to agree with Nathan. I think that I was walking around the room and not a lot of people actually, you know, setting up the demo, you know, during kind of all three demos. And I think maybe if we broke it out into smaller groups where people could get kind of more individualized attention, then that might improve things. And also, if we just kind of peeled off the people that had sort of no interest in in building anything or working on anything as well, there are definitely people that, you know, that come to these things. And, you know, they have no intention of setting up like a dev and try to build or something. And if we gave them kind of like application focused track, that might be helpful because it would give them what they wanted. It would allow us to concentrate our development attention on the people that actually wanted to build stuff. Good feedback. All right, I think that I don't see anybody else who is there. So I guess that that should cover. Unless Brian, do you want to add anything or nothing to add? Okay. All right. All right, then I guess we can move on. So again, just a reminder, the October 3rd and 4th Montreal Hackfest Registration link is up in the agenda. Somebody want to post it in the TSC room, then people can sign up if you haven't already done that. Okay, next item, Todd. Yep, let me just drop the link into the chat. I'll drop this into rocket chat. So annual TSC election coming up in the August time frame. So really just two things for the TSC to review. TSC just for the charter needs to review the election process each year. So the first half of this is really straightforward. It's just the timeline in the process we use. So this is consistent across all the LF projects and what we've done on hyperledger in the various committees here. But effectively, one week nomination phase, one week voting phase, then we'll get results announced for that on August 23rd, and then we'll kick off the chair nomination and election process. So this is the exact same timeframe exact same process we've used for the last two years for TSC and TSC chair. It's worked really well for that. And then the second decision that needs to get made is in the past two TSC elections. The way the charter states it is that the contributors and maintainers on the hyperledger projects are eligible to run in the election. So we basically pull the data from GitHub, Garrett, whatnot, for the last 12 months. What we've added in addition to that is that the workgroup chairs were allowed to provide lists of people they believe were contributing to those workgroups. So do we continue to do that this year? And if so now that we have a wider group of workgroups, what are the parameters around that? So I think the first one around the timeline is straightforward. And then the second one is relatively straightforward but want to feedback and guidance from the TSC. So I will pause there for any questions. And so maybe breaking into two pieces. In terms of the timeline and process, are there any objections or concerns with that? I'll be on vacation. Okay. This is going to be awkward. I could probably I mean, I'm going to be in the Canadian Rockies. I will have internet I guess when I'm in a hotel. And as long as I can vote on my phone, I should be okay. I wasn't planning to bring in a laptop. I don't know if we've had issues, particularly for those in Europe that tend to be gone in August with that election timing, but maybe get some yeah, the next week. And if there's a significant obstacle there, I don't mind pushing it into September. But it's not really a significant obstacle. It's fine. Yeah, I don't I mean, it was just I was like, Oh, crap. Here. Alright, so we can we can have folks review that once the minutes go out and see if there's any major concerns on timeline. And then on the second part, just around the edition of work groups. This year, just seeking some guidance from the TSC on how we go. Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. How do we do? Where did the new lab fit? Are there are there any up and going and into the one of those people? Have if they're not in the project or a working group? That's a good question, Mark. I mean, technically, they're not incubated projects or active projects. But contribution to those does sort of amount to contributions. In terms of growing the community and so forth. It's a good question. What do I think? Yeah, I'd be in favor of including everyone from that. Anybody want to make a motion? I would motion that we include those folks in the in the process. Second. And seconds second. Alright. Anyone opposed? Wait, wait, wait, do we have a quorum? So we do have a quorum we have we have a good time folks I think so is this around everything or is this just for I think this is just a general statement. Do we add the hyperledger labs repose to the list for contributors? Okay, so I don't think we need to formally vote. Maybe we just come to consensus. Well, I just just to, you know, sort of give everybody because we're expanding the scope of who counts. So anyone opposed to adding the hyperledger labs repose to the list of repos that are considered for finding contributors and maintainers here are no opposed. Okay, so it's unanimous. And, and then I guess just since we are a quorum then. And again, this this part is I thought we had agreed that we would always add the work group criteria. But we can we can take a quick vote on that too. So anybody so let's get a motion in a second on adding the work group contributors as last year. And so just to be clear, this would include so all the work groups under the TSC. Yeah, okay. Yeah, I move that we include all the work group contributors. Um, one thing on the definition of who they contributed to a working group is not very firm. These are open mailing lists that anyone can join. The definition of who's a work group lead is more firm. I end up one thing we've done before. I'm sorry, I was distracted. I'm not sure I was mentioned that is how the work groups put together a list of people who they feel have material right. That's the process. Yeah. And so I just dropped the verbiage we use effectively the work of chair nominates. And then there's a dispute resolution process of someone feels like they contributed and they were not noted by the work group chair. Okay, great. So somebody want to second mix motion. Can we accept to make from that list? Yeah, okay, nice. Okay, I second that. Okay, thank you. All right, anyone opposed to using the same process as last year to select to include the work group chairs and from each chair, a list of the individuals that have contributed meaningfully. Any opposed? If not, then motion carries and we'll follow the same process as last year. Okay, so those two additions then Todd the great will have Tracy include the hyperledger labs repose will do some contributors. And then for the timing we're going to punt until next week to lock that down or folks. No, I just it was just an observation I was making that I was going to have I mean, it's just me and others are out. I'm short, but okay, we did it in August last year. So it should be too long. All right, are there any objections from the TSC folks on this call to that time timeframe? Only if I get to go with Chris on vacation because it sounds awesome. All right, sounds good. So we'll move forward with that timeline adding the labs and the work group as of similar to last year. Thank you. Okay, cool. Hi, this is George, a quick question related to working groups. George, what, what is the procedure? And is there a charter template to submit and launch a new working group by a couple of months ago? I think six months ago I tried it and there was no templates for the charters. Has that been formalized? I made a proposal for artificial intelligence, blockchain integration. I'd like to give that another go. I didn't go through the last time. I don't think I got any notification notice for that. Who should I contact and what's the process? So the work group charter proposal template is in the wiki. And I'm going to paste that in the TFC chat right now. And so the process is basically to complete the template and submit it to the TFC for discussion. One of the things that we can do is help you with creating one of those. Because we are starting to work on a couple of additional like industry working groups and recruiting people for the proposal will help it get passed. So I mean we meaning the Linux foundation staff. So feel free to contact me or Arta or David or any one of us that you know or don't even know yet. We're friendly people. Reach out to us. Okay, yeah, I've got a charter already put together. And so I'd like to submit it. And once I submit it, it gets reviewed. And then should I come to the next TSC meeting and raise my hand and say has that are there any questions? Yeah, I mean, I think so that so that the practice was probably should document the process. But the process would basically you fill out the template. You should get, you know, others to sort of cosponsor it with you so that we get a sense of who's interested in participating. And then send it to the TSC mailing list and and then title added to the agenda and he usually reaches out. I'm sure he actually always reaches out and and lets people know if they're on the agenda. Okay, all right, thank you. Okay. All right. So who's up? We got a quilt going once going twice. You are counting TSC sessions that we waited for an update. This would be three. Yeah, Adrian did reach out to me last week and apologized. He had a call that ran over and he thought he could join late to give it to give his update. So if he joins, then sorry, Dan, go ahead. I thought somebody had said at the beginning that he was on. I thought so too. And that's why I'm holding on to hopefully somebody's just having trouble coming off mute. Yeah, it's too bad if he's not on his, he's gone into the trouble of actually filling out the right. Yeah, last week, we ended the call after 10 minutes, I think, and he joined at the bottom of the hour and nobody was there. Okay. So we'll hold that and if he joins, then we'll have that. And then is Victor or anybody on for Calliper? And we've not received an update from them. Yeah. Okay. Mark. Yeah, I wonder if somebody ping him on chat. I'm not sure. I wonder if there's some sort of communication problem with Calliper that maybe they don't participate here because of the time zone. Can't imagine they're not. Well, Victor has been on a number of times. Yeah. So I don't know. And in Baja, I think I saw on right. So, you know, any of me? Yes. Yes. Sorry. This is how to from type of team. Yeah. And also we have a new new team member named Kelly. She is also from the company and she will be the representative of Huawei for this project. So I think we will introduce the new progress of this project to you. So Kelly, can you begin your introduction? Okay. Can you hear me? Yes. Can I share my screen or I just talk about it? Todd, you want to go? Okay. First, we have to do something about the features that we have updated to the support of fabric truth version 1.1. And we also optimized the support of fossil truth. And we then we ended a supporter for Yeroha and accept these efforts. We also extend the test case, the small back and we also optimize the documentation about the community. Are you sharing a screen because I don't see anything? Okay. Sorry. Can you see my screen? No, I'm not seeing anything. Maybe you just want to show the report then you can ask Todd for help. So I don't think we've received the written report yet. Unfortunately. Can you see my screen? Oh, I see it's a presentation. Okay. So we need to put it into the wiki. So can you see it now? Yes. Yeah. Oh, okay. I just said our our our efforts about the truth of features. We support of fabric to version 1.1. And we also optimized the support for the truth and added this for your Yeroha and the composer. We also added a new test case small. We also optimizes the contentions about the community building. We as you see now we have 110 stars, 63 folks and 10 controllers from Huawei IBM and the Budapest University except the users from composer and the Yeroha. We also add new users from persistent systems and the trust trusted blockchain alliance persistent system is accompanied here and the trust is a blockchain alliance is led by history of industry and the technology of the Chinese government. Now they know trust is a blockchain alliance is using capital as part of the certificate certification tool. According to these users, we have the plan. The next plan is include we will go on working with white block to add a network emulator. And as we know, persistent system has optimization in client. So we will upstream their features into the caliber. And then we will work with trusted banks to add more pressure, more use cases, trust trust is a project which is led by blockchain alliance. So that's our work. That's all. Okay. Do you have any questions? Actually, I've got a question. Hi, that's Nikolai from Ceramitsu. We've been using your tool for performance and load measurements. And I want to know if you've got some plans for CI support so that we can use your tool as the part of our continuous integration pipeline so that we can check every change in the code base, if it improves or worsens the performance of our of our here. Do you have any plans for that in the future? I mean, you've got some plans for CI integration, maybe Jenkins, maybe some other tools. If not, we can talk about this maybe how we call a project chat just as a feature request. We don't have this plan yet. I think that's a good point. And we can discuss it. If you want to help us to build the CI. Okay, great. Are there any issues that you'd like to bring to the TSC's attention? Not yet. So I think, you know, in sort of along the lines of Dan's question, are you comfortable with the sort of the pace and if you will, the arc of growing a development community around Caliper? I mean, I think, I think, you know, it's good to see the sort of the collaborative effort that is going on. But oftentimes we look for for even more. But just curious. I think in the past next three months, our main focus is on the development part and and I think after that, in the future, we we would like to do more do more communication with the community to improve our influence. For example, maybe we can show a demo or some head first or something like that to to appear more contribution, to appear more contributions to to participate in this project. Okay. Just out of curiosity, how many. So I, you know, I think we have support as was noted for sawtooth fabric and eroha. How many people are actually just curious from the TSE perspective and anyone else that's on are people using Caliper? I know I have a little trouble getting one or two working because it wasn't really ready yet. And so I had to do some hacking on my own. But I'm just curious if others are using it. As for hyperledger eroha, that's our pipeline of release to support I mean, to integrate upcoming release in Caliper so that if you want to run a measurement against our new release, Caliper is ready. So yeah, we think that's a great tool. But we still need to negotiate more with performance working group so that we can, you know, come to a conclusion of what is the notion of the committed transaction and things like that. I think we have some work in that direction. I mean, we need to have more work in that direction. Okay, I think that's fair. Any other questions for Caroline or Halogen? Are there any language restrictions up front? I think there's remembering right most of the tools in JavaScript. There's there's a requirement then to be building transactions with JavaScript or if they need to tell you what now called to do things in other languages that would be used as clients. Yeah, and now the whole product framework is implemented through JavaScript. And we also get some advice from other people that may want to some want to support for other language like Java or Go or the language. We are considering it. Do you foresee any performance limitations in the tool itself using JavaScript in this No, no, no, I don't think there are any any restriction of JavaScript. From my point of view, the performance of the plans that are good enough. And if if any people have any have any performance of consideration, I thought we found it about kind parts there. We can talk about it. OK, thank you. Any others? OK. If not, then next up is Mark. Thank you. Thank you. Sure. And I'll be happy to work with you guys on the definition. Just sorry, one last reminder then for the the calip team, if you wouldn't mind just copy and you're reporting to the template on the on the wiki, it'll make it consistent with the rest of the project and working group updates. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Thank you. All right, Mark, go ahead. Sure. And Todd, can you share my presentation or my page there? And at this point, you know, Dan and I will sort of tag team here and anyone else from the PSWG wants to happen till free. So overall, you know, we've continue to push forward with the metrics document. I think Chris, you are on a call or two. I've missed a bunch due to some health issues. But I have six weeks off now to dig into everything and help get this wrapped up. And a lot of the problem is just, you know, what is a, you know, one is a transaction finalized, you know, and if you think of all the different implementations that are out there trying to come up with something that covers most of the cases is a bit challenging. But I think we're making good progress on that. Eight to 10, eight to 12 regular participants on the calls and Todd, I'll get you a list of those spread across globe, many companies, three or four academia's. So it really good technical discussions. And we probably go too deep lately, but I think we're, you know, reaching outside the hyperledger community, we have some people from the Royal Bank of Scotland. They got that right. I know there's two banks up there, similar names that have joined as well. So we get a good diversity of people and many different viewpoints on the same thing. So that actually, you know, makes it take longer, but helps make it more accurate, I think. At this point, I think we need to start wrapping up the document and possibly bring things up a level in the technical detail. But I think in the last couple weeks, we've been making good progress on that. Dan, you want to add? As far as diversity, I think one of the most important diversity metrics we have for for that working group is making sure that we've got representation from the different architectural styles. And I think we have had good representation from fabrics, sawtooth, and even corda, which not a hyperledger project, but still viewpoints that we wanted to comprehend in the document. So I think that's good. I think we've got relatively good geographic diversity, at least from the northern hemisphere. Sure, there's a lot of work going on in the southern hemisphere that would be nice to capture. And then other sorts of demographics are fur from the phone call, but mostly a male population. So we do want to have good knowledge of all the work that's going on and all the viewpoints. And everybody is welcome in those meetings. And then the last thing on my mind then is what Mark was getting into about where it feels like we're tailing off towards a conclusion on some of these points. And it might not be ever 100 percent because there are so many kind of conflicting requirements. If you wanted to get down to a single definition, but I feel like we have all these view points comprehended in some way. So hopefully we'll have this coming to a conclusion soon. So then my question for maybe some of the other working groups that have produced a document is what does that flow look like? I know that we've worked with tech writers facilitated by the Linux Foundation to help clean up a document before it's published. And then also what we want to do is change control as we start heading into that last stage. So if Hart or someone else who's been here, somebody who's gotten documents all the way through Rom, maybe he's on what the what that actual process looks like. It's time consuming. And we will give you the whole story next week at the White Paper, hopefully conclusion. But are you working with a technical writer? No, not yet. OK, so for at least for us what I think the the general solutions and tends to be for both White Paper, White Paper and the architecture White Papers is we get the text into some kind of shape that we're happy with the content, even if we're not completely happy with the presentation. And then we get the help of a professional and they help us make it more readable and look nice. Thanks. Yes. So we probably have, I don't know, hopefully not more than two to four. Sorry, was I talking over? No, not at all. OK, I get a little feedback on my mic. But anyway, after that point, we'd want what the tech writer involved or maybe even sooner than that. So from a process perspective at the Linux Foundation, I'm not sure who we work through there. Brian or Todd, I don't know if you've got immediate feedback there for us. Sorry, I was on mute. I imagine I'd be Tracy around. Dan, I'll connect up with you offline and can help you out. Thank you. And then one thing that I inadvertently skipped over there, especially since we have Caliper contributors on right now. And I think that there may have been some obstacles for your continued participation in those working group calls. Not sure if that's a time zone challenge or if there's other things, but I think we're we're all interested to make sure that you're well integrated into that working group. So feel free to let us know if there's something that will help accommodate that participation better. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Sure. Sure. Great. Thanks. Well, so I would encourage, you know, as we're trying to wrap up, I think, you know, Chris hopped in a couple of weeks ago and added some useful comments to the document. And I would encourage anyone on the call. The link is in our report to at least spend, you know, five, 10 minutes going through the document and leaving feedback. Though I would like to say that I think something that slowed our progress over the last six months was inconsistent participation. So if somebody comes in who hasn't been involved for months and wants to sort of re litigate some definition that's there, then that usually consumes a couple meetings. So we end up going backwards. So we do want more participation but try to make sure that that you've got something significant if you are going to ask that we take a step back. Yeah. Hey, Dan, this is Brian. Sorry, I was away for a bit. One of the things I might suggest is using the mailing list a bit more for I know there's great use of the wiki to evolve the definitions and such. But one of the challenges in kind of phone calls like this is, you know, unless we have Todd Benzies taking notes, stenographically, as he does, it can be a challenge to remember what was what was decided upon and and rationale behind it. Right. So so if more of the conversations happen over email, that might also help address the accessibility and time zone challenges as well. Not to say phone calls shouldn't happen. Just if more of the activity can move, that would be great. That might be helpful. Yeah, thanks for that feedback. One of the things that we do do is we we do change control on a Google Doc and we tend not to merge changes the medium that they occur in. So they stay at least a week for people to to see the change and then we tend to merge it in the following week or in some cases, a couple months afterwards, if it seems particularly contentious or something like that. For upcoming I was going to submit a talk to the global hack fest in Switzerland on the work we've done. Does the people feel that would be a talk that would be good for people or I mean, is that the kind of thing you're looking for that? Yeah, I certainly think I mean, this is one of those areas that does, you know, has, you know, broader interest, I think than just us chickens at Hyperledric is really talking about performance and scale measurement of blockchain generally. All right, cool. Any other questions? Let me double down. That would be great to see. I mean, it might be provocative, but extending a handout to you know, Florida or quorum or some of the other organizations and saying, hey, this might be of interest or value to you and having support for those in Caliper also be interesting too. OK, yeah, quorum actually got spun off, right? That's the rumor. Yeah, well, it's a good rumor. All right, and the other the other side note is I, like I mentioned, I'm have had limited time to work on this my full-time day job, but I am on short term disability for six weeks, so I have time to work on it now. So I was with with, you know, hope you have a speedy recovery. Well, I don't want it to be too speedy. I'm hoping to go hiking and then the Canadian Rocks. Oh, there you go. We'll make a party out of it. This is Ram. Just a quick comment. I'm doubly muted earlier. So couldn't get my comment in earlier. Just on getting the document published, have you reached a point where the all the technical content is more or less complete? So if you can contact Greg, he's been kind of very helpful to kind of go from the engineering technical version of the document to something that can be consumed more broadly. Greg Wallace. That's correct. Great. Thank you. So have you reached a point where, you know, from a technology point of view, this is pretty much done and it's kind of. I think it's got probably 90% of the content in that content. It's probably 90% accurate. And so I think we can we can close up the last 10% of content, hopefully in the next, I don't know, two or four weeks, like I was saying, and I don't know that we'll I don't want to strive for 100% accuracy if it falls. I think, yeah, so we've typically started when we were 85, 90% to get the dialogue going with with the writers. So I think that's that's a great time to transition our and perhaps we can have a invite you guys to come to one of our work group session to kind of go over that, just to see if there's any overlap and coordination between the groups. You know, if you think you want to help, well, I was also thinking. So I think, you know, this is one of those key things, not that the others white paper and architecture and so forth are not also key. But this is also potentially an area where there's I understand the backsliding comment, Dan, but when people talk about performance and scale, people get persnickety for a variety of reasons. Because things can get biased in the wrong direction and so forth. So I think it might actually be worthwhile to sort of doing a group group in the TSC itself of what we have in the document. I could also encourage everybody to join the performance and scale working group call. But maybe we can just sort of tee up a half an hour to go over what's in it on a TSC call and give it some attention. Yeah, I think that sounds like a good tool. So try to get that last chunk of content here. And then we've got we've got all the substance to talk about. And if anybody has some significant information that hadn't been circulated before, then that would be a good time to understand it. Yeah. And I would certainly encourage people to go and and look at the Google Doc and at any and any thoughts. OK. Well, if that's it, then I'll give everybody two minutes back. Thanks. And we'll talk to you all next week. I have one quick thing, if you wouldn't mind just for a second. I can't. The hyperledger community calendar seems to be pretty awkward to use. And I wonder if there isn't some effort that could go in them to. So my understanding is that Tracy has been asking for quite some time to get the ability to embed the calendar in the wiki and apparently that's some change that would potentially be a security problem for the wiki itself. And so it won't let her do it. I can speak to that very frustrated is what she told me. And so. Yeah, I agree. It's funky. Chris, I can speak to that. OK. The the issue is it's basically you can either have all embedded HTML or none. So that's the it's the complaint and this actually neatly dovetails into something I wanted to bring up and that is potentially bringing up a second wiki instance to support things that this wiki doesn't support and we're out of time. So I won't bring it up, but that's under discussion. Bringing up confluence either instead of or beside the current docu wiki. There are tradeoffs either way, but perhaps on the next call we could discuss that. Yeah. Thanks, Roy. One other quick comment. I apologize for not being ready two weeks ago. I didn't get a mail saying that it was due and I have been negligent and always checking the TSC calendar. But maybe if email could go out to the chairs a week or two before you're expecting updates that because there's always seems to be a lag and some people being able to get it ready. That's that. Next. Yeah, I've been putting it in the TSC agenda. Sorry, everyone sees what's upcoming. So that's one place to look, but we can send additional notes if needed as well. OK. So like in the agenda that went out for this week, it shows what's coming for for the coming weeks as well for updates. So that's a good place to check what we can do. But is it? Yeah, I think actually maybe an email might not be a bad idea. Going forward just to so not everybody's on the TSC. So. OK. Thanks, everybody. And we'll talk to you all next week. Thank you. Thank you.