 Cool morning everybody or afternoon evening wherever you happen to be We have the usual hackfest planning readout from Todd and and then we've got a couple of project reports and We can Pick up the discussion on hyperledger labs if there's time I Hope there's time and maybe we can Get that to closure Are there any other agenda items people need to bring up? Okay, if not Todd you want to take off with the hackfest stuff Sure thing before we go into the upcoming dates Just circling back. We did send out a survey after the Lisbon hackfest Thank you for everyone that submitted your feedback into that We do factor that into upcoming hackfest. So two things I do want to call out One is for future hackfest. We are extending it to three days So essentially what we're going to do is add a day zero Before the two-day hackfest and that's really going to be focused on Developers that are new to hyperledger Helping folks come up the learning curve To be able to better participate in the hackfest bring new developers into our ecosystem And in doing this it'll also allow the two-day hackfest to really be focused on more More hacking more advanced topics As opposed to kind of splitting time partly helping new people come up the learning curve and then trying to simultaneously hack So we think that format is going to work well And so the next hackfest we will be trying that for the first time And then the second piece of feedback that we're factoring in is it sounds like people do enjoy the flexibility of the Unconference format kind of figuring out sessions on the fly But there is a preference to have a little bit more structure in place for this so that people understand where to go when topics are happening And so we're gonna put a little bit more structure in place for Los Angeles So please if there's topics you want to cover Things you want to hack on projects you want to work on Cross-project collaboration get that dropped into the Google doc as early as possible And we'll start to map this out a bit in advance As always we'll leave some flexibility in the agenda for topics on the fly as they come up But we think this will be an improvement for the next hackfest as well So moving on from there We do have the next three hackfest pretty well mapped out So the next one will be February 20th to 22nd in Los Angeles That first date the 20th will be the the day for new developers 21st 22nd will really be the core hackfest This will be at UCLA We have a fantastic venue there. We were just waiting for the ink to dry on that But registration should go live today So I'll be sending that out later this afternoon Onward from there. It is looking like Dubai April 29th to May 1st There is an event there future blockchain summit. I believe is what it's called So we're just working out the details on this will be in touch with more soon And then the next one is for our European hackfest We'll be bringing that back to Amsterdam June 27th to 29th But that is firmed up so we will have more details on that soon So hopefully having these mapped out many months in advance will be better for everyone's travel schedule planning And for us to promote and get new new faces there Any questions on any of that I See one one question from heart in the chat window in terms of day one out of the veterans We're figuring that out right now You know, I think Tracy Dave and some other folks from our immediate staff will be there for sure But that's that's up for discussion right now. So I think let's come back in the TSC next week and figure out who from The more the veterans should be there Sounds great. Thanks. I think that oh, sorry So I think for you know, yes veterans. I think I think it would be ideal if If as many of us can show up so that we you know can handle the Questions and so forth. I definitely think though Todd that you know for planning these days eros that certainly there needs to be somebody who can Effectively represent each of the projects Yeah, good good point Chris So I guess we'll have to figure out how to How to handle that but okay any other questions This is Tracy. I just want to say maybe I can send some time and put together like a tentative Day one day, you know, whatever we're calling that proposal for what that day might look like and then That might help us determine who should be there from each of the different projects Yep, that sounds good All right, we'll take that for next week. Okay, where did my agenda go? Okay, next up is hyperledger. Exploder. No, I'm sorry Explorer Who is giving that readout? Hi, this is Satish from DTC C Hi, Satish Hey, good evening guys So How does it work? Do you open it on the screen chair or do I? I've dropped the link for it into rocket chat. So folks can pull it up on there Yeah, I think it's best if everybody has their own copy Okay, I'll drop the link I'm going to copy the link here I've dropped it into the the TSC channel for those in there. Oh, yeah, perfect. Thank you so So the project helps and we made the blockchain explorer compatible with the version one of fabric And then announcement will be sent out soon. So Part of those the sponsor for this project is working with Tracy Kurt with respect to publishing a blog and In this release we closed about 19 tickets slash user stories and We simplified the configuration to be able to connect to a network easily and there are no issues at this time and The release will be announced soon. So we made an informal announcement in the in the chat channels to sort of get an Early response from the people who are using it sort of release candidate and once we fix those issues We'll be able to send the announcement soon And the overall activity in the past quarter So we made some Significant contributions to be to make it compatible with the fabric one dot zero. The earlier version was working with zero point six and the activity on the Channel the blockchain explorer channel is The yeah, the channel is quite active. So we see people asking questions and we're trying to respond as soon as we can and The current plans in terms of current plan, you know, we are Reacting this to react is to be able to develop easily. So The current version of the code is not so convenient to roll out new changes. So That's what we are working on and a few things lined up on the road map and we are having the road map discussion with With the team of the explorer project. This includes people from DTCC, AmEx and Wan Chen and In terms of maintenance diversity, we added two members from Wan Chen in the past quarter And from contribution wise, so we have contributions from DTCC Wan Chen and other individual contributors That's what the status so far Any questions? Any question for Satish? Hi Satish. This is both I have two questions What is about the React.js? I saw the project is using React.js. So I'm not sure whether it's Compatible with the architecture projects now. We can use that When you say compatible with hyper ledger project meaning compatible with other hyper ledger project. I mean There should be some license issue before and not sure whether it's resolved now Okay, I Am not aware. Maybe we can check with the Linux Foundation legal team Okay, it's still the status. Yeah Okay, thanks, and I saw there are two new maintainers from Wan Chen so a We're doing the where if the companies is Wan Chen or An Chen. I just want to make sure there's no typo This is a company from China The website says one ten. Okay. Okay. That's to make sure Because there are two companies one is Wan Chen and the other is An Chen. The An Chen one should be in China too Okay, okay Thanks Thank you. Any other questions? Okay All right. Thanks Satish Next up is me. Here's the link TSC and Put it in the chat, too. Okay So this is the second installment we've been completely around the horn as they say in baseball and And so now we're in the second rev for all the different projects Obviously we we didn't get a readout on quilt, but they'll they'll join us in the in the next in the next round So in terms of the project health, I think things are still Going pretty well from my perspective. You know, we're continuing to Add new contributors and we're seeing Many of the contributors sticking around which is also good. And so we're starting to actually get to the point where we've got quite a number of Of the contributors Posting ten or more commits it's almost half which is really really a good sign from my perspective So we actually Reduced the the total mix of IBMers we dropped 2% from From the the previous report in October We did, you know, get a little bit of an uptick in terms of the code Commits that were landed since 1.0 from 49 to 50% From IBM, but that's still I think, you know, from my perspective, it's it's still a good sign I think that the bump is probably likely because we're coming up on a release and a lot of fixes and so forth and a lot of those are coming from IBM so We've added a number of commits, I think the number is something along the lines of 300 plus And we've been putting out releases on a monthly basis Consistently, I think the only month that we didn't put one out was the end of December Because of the holidays, but there really also weren't any any any serious defects to warrant it and we're in the process of Working towards a one-to-one alpha code freezes actually or not code free feature freezes tomorrow, and then we'll be working on the the death march to to knock down the bug count Although the good news is that the while the bug count is Something like 130 something a lot of those are actually questions and not really bugs So we just need to go through and triage some of those So I'm I'm pretty confident that we'll have one-to-one alpha out by the end of the month and and then probably beta in February and Final one that one release and in March I Think you know I skipped over the issues. So the issues that we have are still relating to Jira. I'd really like to sort of tee off on the Obtaining a Jira expert to help us configure Jira With github and Garrett so that we can be using it a little bit more effectively have it automatically changing status and stuff like that as well as You know just getting the the workflows and so forth Much more effectively configured Than they are so I don't know Todd or I don't know if Dave is on and what the status of Getting a Jira contractor into you know an expert to come in and help us with that but it's still a pressing need Yeah, hey, this is Dave We have been Making some improvements to Jira lately We've been able to get the security permissions and stuff all lined up We do not have anybody lined up necessarily to come in and fix it, but that's on my short to-do list actually so Expect an email from me out to the TSC to start gathering some of the requirements Yeah, it's actually not to say it's a bit difficult right because it's not just a Jira guy Right, and it's somebody to help us with the entire integration So when somebody has an issue that he works on and then he submits a change request We would like to see something like in review. It's the whole we need everything like the three mechanisms to be in sync So yeah Yep, that's challenge that would be great. Yeah, so I'm maybe Yeah, so in the coming weeks will will definitely I'll be doing a survey or something will be gathering requirements So we can figure out what we need to change Okay Continuing on so I covered the releases In terms of activity, you know, the mailing list continues to be fairly active. We had a Actually a nice spike in in December and November rather Traffic dipped in December, but it actually it dipped from the spike back down to just shy of normal levels of approaching 200 or so a month And and rocket chat again continues to to churn away And we we actually as I was putting this together I went to stack overflow And we had just ticked the 1000th question on hyper ledger fabric tag, which is Nice little milestone. We're about hundred one thousand and three actually this morning Where might current plan current plans in terms of Where are we going with fabric? Obviously we we we plan a one-to-one release in the first quarter That's tracking currently 21 major features and epics And and again as with as always is the case. We're tracking everything in Jira We have a dashboard that sort of highlights where we are in terms of getting there and You know, basically the the most important one obviously is going to be getting True live upgrade compatibility from 1.0 to 1.1 So that you don't have to bring a network down to do the upgrade Maintainer diversity actually grew by virtue of the fact that we actually lost a couple of IBMers to attrition To State Street and also to consensus and so now the the total mix is there 15 maintainers nine from IBM Three from State Street one from a Sarah one from Huawei and one from consensus And just a note. We did actually go through a bit of a retirement process for the maintainers from digital assets Sad sad note I although I I did hear that actually I think he's doing well, but Tamash actually had to retire from digital assets and he had to move to Germany for some to get some treatment for some health issues and And the other maintainer From from digital assets was reassigned and so he hasn't been working on the project for a better part of a year Go ahead with somebody chiming in no, no, I was just naming him. That's right. Yeah In terms of contributor diversity, we continue to add new contributors as I mentioned and we actually have about half of them that are You know starting to really engage where the number of commits is an excessive 10 So that's actually quite quite good news Basically 18 new contributors from four or more companies again We don't Always have true visibility into who people work for because they're using Gmail or other You know personal emails for their commits, but It's it's good to see the the increasing Contributions and I just sort of highlighted here the notable increased contributions from Secure key states 3 to Tachi SAP Oracle and IT people And that's pretty much it unless people have questions No questions. All right I guess we should move on to the labs proposal then Tracy or no one of you guys want to run this one. Yes. Hi, this is Sorry But I should be able to speak so just if he goes off don't worry, I'll be back shortly So Yes, the labs so I made a fairly significant revision to the document as I said in my email For those who haven't seen it. I did listen to the recording from last week's meeting and I Try to address You know the points that were made during the meeting. I especially like the change From maintainers to stewards for the labs I was actually struggling with that part to clarify They were like kind of two sets of maintainers the in the lab themselves and at the higher level of the org So the Stuart stuff makes that completely clear, which is great As I said in my email the main change for me the significant change I would say is The clarification in the terminology so that we avoid any possible confusion as much as possible between the official projects that are being you know under the governance directly of the TSE that goes through the approval process with the heap, you know and Starting an incubation and moving from there and the labs So we started with the terminology of hyperledger lab projects and somewhere actually while I was editing the document earlier I had started removing this because I thought it was a bit clunky But then you know, I had a somewhat of an epiphany when I was working the document yesterday that you know, I realized that in fact just avoiding any kind of you know Combination of lab and project in the same sentence could could be somewhat of a lifesaver in this instance because if we merely refer to labs as such as labs We can keep the term projects for the official projects and never mix the two and I mean, maybe you guys won't be so impressed for me it was kind of a breakthrough and I revised the whole document and In fact, I made slight modification again this morning when I got up. It was on my my pretty much all night and So that you know, even when we talk about moving from a lab Possibly to a project. I had sentences that were still talking about project in incubation Which seems to imply there's a some other kind of project And so I actually removed that to say things like in the first sentence or in the in the introduction the second sentence, you know Can be started with that the creation of a project That's it. There's no like, you know a project incubation. So it's very clear. It's like This really means a lab is not a project. So It I think clarifies a lot of things and I've you know I've revised the whole document I was searching for the use of the term project to make sure that every instance was okay with that kind of definition and I think the document is much clearer in that respect now There were several issues. They were raised that I kind of addressed based on discussion I hope I captured the intent and you know, although there was no formal agreement made during the call There was clearly a few things where they seem to be, you know, emerging consensus and I tried to capture that in the text and and You know, it's it's if people have a problem with what I put they should just raise issues but so as it stands I think There are a couple of issues or three left that we should discuss the first one has to do with what it takes what are the criteria to create a lab and So there was these discussions Yes, last week about a sponsor or mentor I figured it was meant to be the same kind of concept that there is some form of there is a person that will endorse the Lab and that's a condition for the project or the lab to be created rather and There's a question as to okay who constitute who qualifies as a sponsor They were discussions in the on the call as to whether it should be a commuter or whether You know or something else. So I put in the text today that it is a commuter of one of the hyperledger projects Dan already expressed himself in email that he would rather leave me that to actually maintain her I'm really open to that. The thing I actually you can see there There was a point three and point five that I scratched out. I voluntarily obviously, you know I left them there crossed out so that it wasn't just something that disappeared people didn't realize I had initially suggested we use five different people That was based on what the dirt we see does for committee groups There was this notion that you know, maybe we should have at least one commitment When commit that's from the proposer, right the requester of the lab I feel like we probably can get away with only have a sponsor We just need to define what that sponsor is. So I'd like to open the discussion on that if we could start So I put a comment in on this one and again, my recollection from the discussion was that the proposer had to be a committer that was I think we pretty much Agreed that you know to to help sort of Ensure that there's sort of continuity from a committee a Community perspective that they had contributed at least one commit So that and then the other part of it was the sponsor or mentor Hard and I thought that we had agreed that it would be a either a TSC member or a maintainer from another project Others may may disagree, but that's my recollection from last week now. I go back and listen to the tape, but Okay, so the first point you're making means that we would Scratch point five basically right Remove yeah, put it back. Yeah, put it back in does that have to be I One of the proposers because they may be more than one are we satisfied with one of them? Being a commuter or do they all have to be I guess the origin of that came from the patchy labs And yeah, what they they're using that that commit as I think they were they phrase it as a sort of social filter See that that somebody's at least participated once in a healthy way Since we also have this sponsor requirement, that's something that they don't have Feel like so long is is one of the is one of the proposers has a commit. That's fine I don't know if it's complicated to make it More or less specific than that but that this thing I didn't feel like we needed to have both the sponsor and Have the proposal be a commuter Chris you seem to be saying yeah, we want both. I I thought that's where we landed I mean others may disagree, but that's what I thought I mean We're speaking about both of them sort of in parallel and I don't know if we really had a good dialogue about whether we needed both I'm I'm kind of indifferent. I I Prefer the the sponsor be there for sure because that that seems like a higher threshold Yeah, the commit is nice to have but I could go either way on it. I Was my thought that I thought okay if we add the sponsor and now make it like it has to be at least a maintainer I feel like You know Forcing that the the proposal is also a commuter is somewhat you really even because the bar is higher anyway, I Guess it could be I guess it could be I Guess it could be said that you know the social filter is well, you've had to sort of solicit One of the TSC or a maintainer from another project to be your sponsor So that could be the social filters. There's there's a bit of a hurdle there. I Agree, I Do I do Good It seems like the filter around the idea of voting actually might make sense here as well because it might make sense to have Working group chairs also serve as sponsors and then also we might see that's a project come out of participation in one of these working groups That's a good That's a good add actually I think in addition to maintainers or TSC So let's capture that already the the sponsor where you seem to agree that it's either a maintainer of one of the project TSC member I'm writing it now Or a working group chair that sounds good to me if everybody's happy with that that solves that the issue Anybody disagrees That's good So now let's go back to that point five then given that do we want to also require that the proposer? Is a committer? I mean, you know One possibility is that it's up to sponsors to require it a sponsor might say who are you? You know, I don't know you have you contributed to anything and they might say I would like to see you contribute to the project before I sponsor your lab but Yeah, if we want that to be, you know, broadly Apply then it's better to put in the rules So Dan you brought that one up and you seem to be a little bit ambivalent now Is the sponsor? You know sufficient If we trust this one I mean If the sponsor would need some proof to kind of, you know, build up But I think you know the the point that Dan made was that the Apache labs uses it as a social filter in other words it's sort of Again with and and so forth I think that's fair Yeah, and part of what we were trying to also get here is that they're They're part of the community. They've they've been they've been interacting close enough with the community that What they're what their lab is about is is relevant And it's in concert in some way with with what hyper ledger is doing So I think a commit requiring a commit makes that a stronger requirement but Again, I don't feel so strongly about that that We could make it should We could also open it up They've done a Significant contribution to the working group. I know we do that sort of measurements when we do the voting list At least we did this last year But I because the lab is Code project in one way or another. I think it commit might make sense actually so Kelly I think that may be your point and maybe what we could just say is a proposer needs to be a member of the hyper ledger technical community and Leave it at that and so they could be a an active and You know active participant in a working group or committing, you know code Or serving on the TSC that any of those they're they're already part of the community, right? Yeah Doing some change request like I think the more we can encourage people kind of to to participate The better it is right as the TSC so anything that kind of you know encourages interaction. I think it's good So maybe it's another good opportunity to Recreate I know I think that The reference here should just be to you know, e.g. Has voting privileges in the annual Yeah, yeah Wait, wait, so I was trying to capture what you guys were talking about that the really what we're interested in making sure that the proposers I Think what we want to say is the proposers need to be a member of the hyper ledger technical community and by definition That means they have a vote in the annual election and Teria are established by whatever that criteria is Very good. I get it. I don't do we know the exact term? We'll need to put a link there otherwise I can search for I think a link would be to be good Yeah, we find it with VPN back in the day right before the election Yeah, well and where there's ambiguity. I think we err on the side of inclusion there, right? Sure. Yeah. Yeah Yes, of course, of course. We're not gonna be too Yeah, it should be a reasonable TSC And I think similar to the TSC or the votes in the annual election I think we deferred to the workgroup chairs to Say yes or no if someone was active participant so that could be easy way to look at it Yeah It just a quick question. Are there any sort of legal Issues that we have to go through for membership or otherwise or is that taken care of by the other clause? I Don't believe so, Nick. I think I mean from a Participation in the technical community. It's open to anybody. You don't have to be a member you're Making a contribution under the DCO and it's Apache license Yeah, as long as the DCO is I can care of that should at least cover most of the big concerns Yeah, I think the process we're in place where people have to do basically a pull request to to start the process of You know proposing the lab Forces them to have registered with the Linux Foundation and therefore committed So I think we're covered there Okay, it sounds like we're making progress. Can I scratch number three there? I scratch it off I can remove it that in based on what we did. I think it's a Okay, so I'll add a link to the definition we use for the for the vote for the technical community I think that settles this issue. That's great So next we have Anybody wants to add anything to this? No, so let's move on Then Tracy you added this thing. I heard you on the call talking about diversity and while I understand what you're looking for I have to admit. I had no idea how to capture that in the document Yeah, I I Think that's a hard thing to capture, right? So I would be perfectly fine if we didn't capture it, but yet we Recognize it, right? Especially the people who are going to be the sponsors Okay So that's more of a recommendation and it's in line with our code of conduct and all that stuff that you know, you shouldn't You know reject Lab proposal just because you don't like the guy or the person personally for whatever reason, right? So and again, there is you know in case you haven't seen it there is a clause somewhere Forget where now, but that says basically if there are any issues you can always escalate to the TSE Whether it's you know prior to the creation or a spot of the creation process or after for that matter, right? Okay, so Next there was an issue as to the name of the attic space in Github that we would use to move The dormants like deprecated projects or labs. I should say it's hard to change your language But that's what we need to do. So I Given all the concerns we have with mixing projects and labs, I felt that okay, it doesn't cost that much to create a new Github org and we'd be better off using hyper ledger labs attic as a new org for that then reason using the existing one, but I Know Chris you seem to you know, lean the other way around so I Just think it makes the landscape a little bit less confusing, but I I'm I don't really carry the way to be honest one particular concern I had was that we have these wording about You know the fact that things can be essentially Resurrected so a lab that was moved to the attic could then later on be brought back to life if commuters starts being more you know either responsive or active and then you know just looking at the Github Organization you wouldn't necessarily see. Oh, this is a lab We would have a clear situation at the higher level between Projects on one end and labs on the other and then when you look into the attic you just have everything in the same bucket I think it's fine to call it Anybody else as an opinion Dan was you was it you trying to speak up? Yeah, I was just trying to understand clarification what you were What you're trying to ferret out but Yeah, I don't I don't have any issue I just quite understand if it was it if it was an issue of naming the Github org or the process of pulling something out of the attic. Yeah, no, it's not the process We are really talking with the implementation of the Github level here You know you actually want to move away the repo for the lab that's been dormant or deprecated and where do you put it? So two options are either we move it to the existing Is that actually do we have that already the hyperledger attic org I Believe so We have an agreement to have one. I don't know if it exists But okay, so we could use that SM attic for everything or we separate the attic for the labs To keep a secretion between the two. Oh, we don't have an attic. I thought we did. Okay, so it's theoretical Yeah, because I would imagine we only need to Want to use it so that's why I wasn't sure it was even there yet. Yeah, I don't think we need to create it until we need it Yeah, I Thought we did have one dress I I could have sworn we did too Greg. I I Don't know. I just looked and it's not there. So isn't it called hyperledger archive right now. Oh Yeah, hyperledger gosh archive Okay, so we need to change the name there then but so Any other opinion on whether we should reuse the same archive space or or get a borg or if we should create a new one I Prefer keeping it separate for the reasons that you described earlier because as As we've put some things into the archive We've noticed that there are usually are lingering links and lingering activity on those projects And having a clear distinction between what was a lab and what was a project? I think will be useful for the six to twelve months as those links Disappear off the web Okay Any other opinions? Okay, so if there is no other opinion, I think we'll we'll use a different Or at least there are two of us that feel strongly about it Is that okay? Nobody wants to scream at me for saying that No All right, then let's call it done. We'll call it a different Name and I mean use a different space so that resolved that issue Yeah Put an S there. Oh Really? Yes, okay I'll fix and I'll go through the document because he talks about attic right now. So I'll change the name That's not a big deal It's really a tutorial in nature. I'll fix that and then the last one then is We got to the representation that's being made by you know that we anticipate people will do and so There is wording already and I updated that wording based on you know That's clear separation between what we call a lab and what we call a project the question was or is you know should we Make people sign up to you know commit to this to this rule as part of the You know making the proposal to create a lab and I don't know technically how we would do that if it's part of you know, what is it would be part of but It's almost like an eagle thingy, right? Yeah, so I think you know so there is a certain set of branding guidelines that Greg and team put out Not you Greg, but Greg Wallace from the marketing The director of marketing put out And there's a certain policing that goes on I think on a regular basis and so You know, somebody's looking at reports that say, you know, we found on the web Hyperledger something and I think they validate that I Think if it comes up then, you know, it's handled in a similar way, which is You know, I guess a couple of strikes and you're warned and then, you know, potentially For trademark violation basically, but I think that should I think you know rather than forcing somebody to sign You know in blood or something like that I think that part of the responsibility for the sponsor should be to make this known to the proposer and you know You know, I think that's part of the obligation of the sponsor is to sort of let them know what the rules of road are Did the marketing committee review if they were good with it being referred as lab name comma hyperledger lab? I Know that Dan and Greg were both in here. Yeah, cool. I mean I Think given it was, you know sort of gone through we should just make sure that Dan and Greg are given one last Yep So to review and I don't know if I mean I suspect that they've reviewed it with the the marketing team You know the marketing working group, but maybe no, I don't know but I Think, you know, I think we're so I think we're at end of The set of issues, right? Yeah, so just to finish on that one though I you know Practically speaking even though I think it might be nice to have a way to get them to click something saying yeah Yeah, I'll respect that I don't know how to implement it So I'm biased against it just because for a practical reason. I don't know how to implement it So I think you know if everybody is okay with what you said Obviously pending that, you know the marketing communication people Think that it's appropriate to have that But as I said, I mean this text initially comes from I forget if it was Dan or Greg But one of them Ray also was involved and Several people looked you know chime did not that that I updated it based on the language to clarify But that's their text. So I pretty confident they'll be fine with it. Yeah, okay, great Okay, so then I think what we ought to do then is give everybody another week to to review it and And then we'll come back next week and we'll do the hominah. I'm gonna or we could do email Actually, if people are okay with that as well Um, and I would invite Dan and Greg to weigh in as well Todd Cool, and I just tagged both of them into the google doc. Yeah Okay All right, let's do let's do email then, you know, maybe before next week's call Okay Thanks, Arno for Really yeoman's work there and tracy Good job Sure Okay, then, uh, I think we're at end of job and Give everybody eight minutes back and we'll talk at y'all next week Thanks all Cheers Our goatee