 Yeah, let's get started for yours. All right, welcome everybody. This is the weekly TSE call. I'm happy to see everybody showed up on time. Very nice. This is a public call. Everybody can listen in and participate. You do have to be aware of two different things that are important though. Antitrust policy notice, which is a display if you are logged online. If not, make sure you go have a look. It's linked from the agenda. And the other part is the code of conduct, which basically asks you to behave like a decent human being. With that taken care of, we can go on with the agenda, which I believe is relatively light, but we'll see. I just inserted before the call one announcement. It's just a reminder that the Hyperledger Global Forum early registration is about to end. It officially ends on February 18th, and then prices go up. So if you're still not registered on the fence, you might want to hurry up. It's only a few more days. Silona, is there anything else you want to say? I guess the main thing is, is the piece about boss tables. I don't have as many of those as I would like, but I do have everyone getting signed up now for their kiosks, or I've touched base with everyone about kiosks and videos. So moving forward on that, the main one would be the boss. Okay. So if anybody's interested or have questions, you can reach out to Silona, and she'll be happy to fill you in on the details if you don't have them. Don't be shy. It's okay to ask, and if it's not working out and it's not for you, that's fine. All right. Any other announcements from anyone? Hearing none, let's move on. So there's two quarterly reports. The first one was actually published slightly, I mean, just a little bit before the call last week. I carried it over because nobody had really had a chance to look at it in detail. I believe now most people have. There were a couple of questions asked, at least mine was answered. Thank you, Sarah. And if there's anybody else who has any other questions they want to ask now, I still market a question, but. I only saw one question. Are there any others? Yeah, because you know what happens is people see the agenda, they're like, oh, there's those reports I haven't seen yet, 21 minutes ago. So I don't blame you for not having seen it. Let me find this, just a moment, I'll just. It was a question about how many maintainers you have in the diversity across companies. We currently have only one at the moment and there are some occasional contributors, but we're working on that. We're really trying to find other companies and we have some leads on that as well. Can't say much right now, but we're working on this. We really hope to increase the diversity among companies as well. It's not something we don't want. It's something we're working on and would like to have that soon. All right, thank you. The other question. And you know, we're always doing something. So there is an update as well that I posted like pretty recently as well. It's just that we fixed caliber, but just in case, I don't know, I think it was important to mention. So there's something new as well. I'm sorry, it was also posted pretty recently, just in case it was something that probably some of the people did not see yet. I just wanted to say that it's there. All right, thank you. We also have one of the maintainers like technical maintainers, if you have any technical questions. I see you comment on the integration with Ursa. Do you have any characterization of how that is going and how useful the, I shouldn't say useful, but how well the integration is going with Ursa both at the technical and interaction level? Well, I'll try to answer. We currently support a build which replaces all our crypto functions like as a separate crypto provider with Ursa calls. And it is for now, it can only be done during compile time. And we are working on being able to switch crypto in runtime based on the exact keys signatures that we see in runtime. We want to use library named multi-hash for this, but we are currently refactoring our type system like classes and structures to fit better. With this library, this is expected like a month, I think, with at least 1.2. Okay, and remind me mostly a C++ code base and then you're calling in Ursa through their C bindings. Yes. So I had a question for maybe the community architects and the TSC with a project like this, that is there a way we can publicize better that they're looking for people? I think that community architects are helping us with that and we really want to talk more about our project on the Hyperledge Global Forum. So one of our maintainers is going to make presentations and talk about this. So we hope it might be useful somehow. And yeah, we also think that some of the users of the project might become contributors as well. As you know, if you're starting to work at a production version of some software based on Eroha, you probably would like to somehow affect what is going on in the development as well. So we also hope to probably find more contributors and maintainers from that, from this way, like, you know. Yeah, so, but surely we are very welcoming anyone who would like to join. Because it's like, we believe this is a great project. So we would really like some more diversity as well. We're great to have new ideas. Yeah, I was going to say Mark, I mean, I don't know beyond what's done for every project anyway. I don't know if there's anything special that could be done there, so, but... Are there any blog posts about like examples of how to get started with Eroha or things like that, that might be a place where you could call out to future contributors slash maintainers? I don't think that we have such blog posts at the moment. But we do have some information about how to get started, you know, using the line interfaces and things like that. So we used to have them updated. Now we're creating a new version of the simple interface that might help people just to try it out in like, you know, like 10 minutes kind of thing. So, yeah, we probably might write a blog and we are going to write blogs about integration software like Burrow and Explorer and ERSA as well because people ask a lot of questions about cryptography. And I think it's important for many people. And yeah, as a person who is mostly talking to people and work on the project from like communication side, I can tell that people are interested in projects like ERSA, so probably we'll also like make a blog about that. Currently we are mostly focused on representing Eroha on the global forum. Yeah, global forum is probably a good opportunity for all of us, particularly leadership positions here to be able to route people to the right projects. And I guess for the projects, you can help facilitate that by giving us points that can help us direct people in the right direction. So a simple example might be that C++ basis for Eroha, where we come upon people at global forum that are looking to get involved with Hyperledger if they happen to be a C++ person, that seems like a good direction to send them. I think at some point it'd be interesting to try to find out exactly what is of interest to people in Eroha. Is it really that it's C++ rather than Go or some other language that people prefer? Is it that there are certain functionalities, like features that they are interested in? I think that could be very telling in terms of where is the real actual value and maybe try to find out if there's some adjustment that needs to be made. Yeah, we currently try to present Eroha as a simpler solution with the ready to go like comments and queries. You don't really need to write any smart contracts, but we also want to provide more functionality with Barrow and smart contracts from Barrow side. So yeah, I don't know, but we used to talk about Eroha as a project that is a little simpler to start work with. So without any smart contracts and such. And yeah, also like SDKs and C++ here. Maybe some people it will be interesting to work with C++. Well, that was the premise that was given to us initially that this was a big differentiator that would draw a lot more contributors. And clearly this doesn't seem to have panned out. So it may be, you know, that's just the way it is. There's maybe a lesson to learn from there. Anyway, I don't want to spend too much time on this. Thank you for your report and answering the questions, both you and Ikele. And let's move on guys. This is Ikele, can you hear me? Okay, sorry, I was muted on two lines. Just to echo, yes, on global forum, there's also going to be opportunities. We're going to be doing videos. If you, Sarah, if you haven't signed up or we can I'll send you a note and show you where the details are, where whoever's going to be representing can do videos and discussions around the work that you're doing. The other thing is there is the open marketing maintainers call and we would love to just, you know, put together a checklist and help you figure out which tools are available for any project in order to promote and to be able to better recruit, you know, more contributors to your projects. So please do join those calls. But Sarah, I'll reach out directly to you in regards to global forum. I'll post it on the TSC list so everybody has access to the same information. I know Solona's been talking about it as well. Bye for go. About the videos, yeah. Thank you, we talked to Solona and I started like creating the scripts and things in search for those. So yeah, we subscribed to the video thing. Yeah, and I will join the call or I'll ask one of the maintainers like technical guys to join the call with the marketing committee. So yeah, thank you. We'll do that. We really want to share this with other people and we'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Daniela, your hand is still raised. You won't say more, that was it. Okay, thank you. All right, thanks. Let's move on guys. There's another report this time for Hyperledger Indie. There was nothing salient in the report that led me to believe this needed to be discussed here, but if there's anything, please speak up now. Either from like, you know, either from the Indie side, there's something specific they want to highlight beyond what's in the report or on the other side from the TSC members if there are any questions. And Shen Yong, you're making a lot of background noise, it seems. Thank you. I have to get off mute before I try to talk, don't I? Yes, that works better. One thing to highlight is that we're in the middle of coordinating a significant upgrade to the anonymous credentials part of the system. If you're involved in Hyperledger Ursa, you've heard about this as a non-cred 2.0. If you've been involved in Indie for a long time, you've been probably hearing about this as the Indie Symantics working group that updates some of the data model around the verifiable credentials specification. And we're looking for additional contributors around that. And that may also be of some interest to those of you who are doing VKP-based work on other ledgers because there's some significant updates and upgrades to some of the revocation mechanisms. So that's maybe one thing to call out here where folks from different projects are available as something that might be interesting to coordinate on or discuss with the mobile forum. Nice, thank you. Anything else? Any questions for Nathan or anyone else? If there's no, do we get done? Yep, go ahead then. Yeah, there's a mention of GitLab CI there. Was the direction that we were all trying to, we're exploring moving into was the Azure Pipelines? Yeah, that's correct. And the team has been working on moving things over to other places. And what happened is one of the infrastructure servers at the Sovereign Foundation had a couple of Jenkins plugins that were out of date. And so we have a couple of legacy build systems from before some of those switches and infrastructure had occurred. And having that vulnerability in the Jenkins server has pushed us to move some things around in order to make sure that some of those systems that had a problem are no longer in the way. Okay, is there anything significant about you looking at GitLab CI versus Azure Pipelines that would be of general interest to other projects? We've had some trouble with some of the different kinds of build systems that have been discussed because there's a mobile component to the client wallets that we've been building with what was the indie SDK component that's now been moving into the Aries project. And that may be of something that's of interest to others who are working on build infrastructure. But I think that the general discussion that we had on that task force around build systems included most of what we talked about. So if anyone's interested in that sort of thing, I would point you to that wiki space and to the work that Dave Huthby has coordinated. Thanks. I need to correct the record there. That's it's Rai actually. So talk to Rai if you got CI CD questions. All right, I guess we're ready to move on then. Okay, so next I want to go back to the issue regarding the common repo structure. We discussed it last week. It was said that people wanted a bit more time so that maintainers of different projects could be made aware and have a look at it and comment back. And I actually updated the decision log page so that it would actually reflect the formal proposal. And so I don't see any shortstoppers. I've seen a few items that are worth keeping on exploring like going beyond the list of documents but also saying, hey, what the structure of a specific document could be like so that we can process it systematically and stuff like this. But I don't see any of this being shortstoppers. I think this is a very good start we have already. And I think it's in our interest to adopt this and as a first step and to keep refining it as we gain experience and come up with new ideas or proposals to go beyond that. So I would like to formally propose the adoption of that proposal that came from the task force. Is there any comments or questions on that proposal? Did, I didn't see any, but Dan since it was your email did anybody respond from the product, the project teams? I did not see any responses. Okay. So collective yawn. I mean. Basically it had some notes in the comment threads so it wasn't a totally yawn. Yes. I think basically team actually looked at it pretty carefully and they commented on several items. So I got the feeling that at least there was one project that looked at it and... Hi. Can you guys hear me? This is Dave. Yes. Go ahead. I just had a general comment that this is great. I like the idea that we're standardizing around a normal structure for all of our repos. I just wanted to point out though that we are in a multi-year self-sovereign identity initiative for making governance and provenance of the code management automatic. So this will be good for a while but because we are inventing new things around repost structure, we will be diverting away from this linter tool at some point and probably sooner rather than later. You'll notice that the did get stuff is getting close to being landed in get which means we'll be able to start signing with credential stored in did documents and we wanna start moving in that direction. Plus there's an initiative for LFID plus self-sovereign identity plus GitHub identity stuff for elections and other governance. So this is great, it's a good start but I definitely endorse this move but just know that we're gonna be informing this linting tool and probably moving away from it probably in the next well, 2020 for sure we'll have some pieces in place. Okay, so Dave, I appreciate the heads up but you confuse me a little bit in your use of we in your sentences there. I'm not sure whether you who you're referring to when you say we are working on some changes we are working on the did get up. I think if I give an exact answer for we am I getting in trouble. Those are my personal plans in the direction we wanna go to, I'll start there. There is a broader LF movement to come up with a better solution for CLAs and ICLAs and DCOs. So there has to be some overlap of what I wanna accomplish with self-sovereign identity what Linux foundation wants to accomplish plus now that most of our codes over or all of our codes over at GitHub we have GitHub IDs we need to account for. So because we are hyper ledger and we do self-sovereign identity is my hope that moving forward we'll find some way to use self-sovereign identity to merge the needs of or to meet the needs of LF hyper ledger and GitHub. So let me put it that way. I mean, it's sort of dodged the answer because these are there is a plan but as concrete projects come out of that plan as we move forward that the way it will become more concrete. Okay, but so when you say we're we're about to diverge from this. It's like, well, this is not accidental, right? And who is we? It's not us. So we have a, do we, are we gonna have a say in any of this? I mean, sure. All right, so I think evolution is probably a good thing. And I welcome the heads up but in any case I hope we have a bit more insights as to the details of some of those plans you're referring to that will impact the way we work before they are imposed on us. Yeah, it's not gonna be imposed. Don't worry about that. And it will be involving the identity working group and the self-sovereign and Ursa and Aries and all that stuff. So we got derailed on that part. Yes, okay. The focus here was I highly endorse this move as this sets us up for the normalized evolution towards self-sovereign identity for this. All right, thank you. So was the current standard listed as the output of the linter or is it the content of the files and the linter is a tool used to enforce that? I'm sorry, say that again. Is what's gonna be passed? Is it a question? Is it gonna list? We expect these files in this structure and the linter is just a tool to enforce that standard or is the thing that gonna be a vote on that we're gonna use this linter with this config? I'm proposing that we use this linter with this config and we can give the various projects a list of here's where you stand. And this is a set of recommended things that they should have. Finally, that's the real Chris Ferris. Yes. Rattle clearly doesn't like whatever Dana was saying. If we know we're gonna be switching tools, should we set the standard of here's what files are and decouple the standard from the tool? It really wasn't clear to me that the identity issues relate to repo lintain anyway. I'm not sure that's what Dana was saying though. Dana, you were saying that the files what the standard is. What the requirements are and not the tool. And I'm fine either way, the net result is the same. If we put this checklist there and said, these are required and these are recommended or suggested that would be fine with me. So that's the list that's captured here as the output? No, that's not the whole list. That's not current. There's another one in the other file. I have to update this, I guess. When did you do that? Taskforce page, I think that one I did update. Ah, I copied that over like a day or two ago. Maybe before I edited it? Well, I don't know. Now you, well, it's linked at the bottom. The structure was last modified for the fourth, so there's no way. Maybe I didn't know, let's see, what did I do? You made me right, oh, no, that's not it. Ah, okay, so what's in the proposal matches? I get Dano's point, but I have the feeling that this is a level of detail that can be tackled independently, but maybe you feel, you guys feel that's wrong? I don't know, you tell me. Yeah, I suppose that you guys adopt the recommendations and that there is a commit made somewhere that has this file and we can roll it out as a PR, right? So the contents of the file, wherever it is in the notes or somewhere else, right? It'll just come as a PR and the results will be a PR or something of that nature. So that's what I would propose. So the proposal does point to the Fabric PR, which I specifically label 630 and everything. And if you go this, it contains- I haven't told you that it wasn't passing CI, but yeah, the file is still the same. But it contains the repo lint.json file, right? Yes, right. So that's, to me, that's what we are talking about. If we all agree on that, then we should be good. And look, I mean, it's not the end of the world. We can change your mind if you don't like it. I think we need to move on. I agree. And this is why I don't want to get too, you know, imagine to the details because I think, as I've said before, we're going to keep iterating over the details and, you know, tomorrow there'll be some other file and then maybe we want to change something you know, again, we want to go beyond that and add some structures, define the format of specific files. And so I expect us to keep working on this. What I would like from us today is that we all agree, yes, this is the way we're going. This is a step forward. It's moving in the right direction. Let's go with this. So that's what's meant to be embedded in this proposal from my point of view. Can we all go ahead with this? Anybody wants to? We had a task force call where we actually talked about this. I think that's what it got much smoother. Yeah, well, I couldn't get one. Sorry. Holy crap. You know, you're free to run one. I just didn't have the time. And every time I did have the time, I couldn't get everybody to on a call. So. Dano, do you have a specific concern now on this proposal that would make you think we shouldn't vote? No, not a concern. It looks fairly good. I think the standard should be on the files, not on a specific tool. And I'll write up a counter proposal if that's what's required. So you don't want us to vote on this? Well, we could vote on it, but I think the standard should be against here's the files, not here's a specific tool, especially if David Hughes became into it today and just said, we're looking at retooling. I retract my statement. If it's going to confuse this, we're not relooking at the tooling. We're not retooling. We're not retooling. To go against each of the repos, it doesn't require any changes of any of the repos, and then they can be sent to the maintainers and they can do with it what they want. But we're recommending very strongly that the ones that are required are there and the ones that are recommended, they can do what they want. I mean, again, I'm fine. Dano, if you want to put together a proposal that talks about the files and not the process, that's also fine, but I think we're spending too much time on this. I wholly endorse Chris's position on this one, and now I'm going to step back. So I like the idea of clarifying which files are required. I don't know if every run through CI, we need to run this tool. So that's a different question. There's a question of implementation is, exactly how do we implement this? Once we agree, okay, whether it's a tool or not, it's like, whichever way you enforce it, it's like, well, how often do you run this? I don't know. And I think those are what we're talking about. We put the repo linter in a GitHub action, you can get it with every mainline build. I think that the tool's good. I think it's great. So I think, I get your point, Dano, and I'm a sticker. So I totally appreciate your point, but I feel like, okay, the tool as it is today, the pointers to the conflict file give you a list. It's a matter of format to a certain extent. You can extract the list from this with a little bit of exercise. And if tomorrow we decide to choose another tool, I think we could easily build on what we have now. And it's not like we'd be stuck because, oh, now we're not using that tool. Therefore, a previous decision is bogus. It may not be as straightforward as it would be if we were just like a straight list, but that's fine. I guess one of the comments that was made was recommended versus required files. Does, I apologize, I haven't looked at the PR Chris, but does the repo linter actually, or the file itself show you what's recommended versus required? Yeah, it does. The output looks exactly like what's on the screen here. These all look like they're required then, right? Yeah. So there's no recommended sorts of files, everything that's listed here is required. Tracy, it says either error or warning. Warning is recommended, error is required. Okay, so there is a way to say that, okay? So with all of that, I still want, you know, I still move to vote for this. How do people feel? Does anybody wants to second it? I'll second it. Thank you, Mark. Okay, I guess we'll do a vote one by one then to have a clear answer because I'm not completely sure everybody's on board. So can you call on everybody? Right, please. Who is in favor? Someone else has the list open, it'll be awesome. I do. Okay. All right, so roll call vote. Yes, please. Angelo. I'm in favor. Arno. Yes. Chris. Yes. Dan. Yes. Gary. Sure, yes. Hart. Yes. Mark. Yes. Nathan. Yeah, yeah. Sweata. Sweata. Yes. Tracy. Yes. And Troy. Yes. All right. Yes, have it. That's unanimous, who would have known? Thank you. All right. All right, we still have a bit more work to figure out all the details, but I'm glad we have actually agreed to something at least to get us moving. So I'll take that as a victory for now. Thank you. All right. You're welcome, Arno. We aim to please you. Yeah, I'm sure that's really hard on your to-do list. Okay, now. And the answer, this one actually pains me, but we have to get back to the other two items related to the TSC election. And it pains me because we really don't seem to be able to make real progress on this. We are going in circle back and forth. We have a few vocal people who are pulling when we are the other, and I don't see a sense of moving forward or progress on any of this. But do we have Dan on the, sorry, is Brian on the call? No, I don't see Brian. Because regarding the observers, last time we talked a bit more about the voter selection. So I want to spend a bit of time talking about the election observers. There was a point at some point, we said, oh, this raises privacy and confidential issues. We should really take it to the governing board. And as far as I know, this never happened. And I don't know, and VPN said, come on, this is BS, we can just decide this. And so I have to admit, I'm not sure how to even move forward on this, just from the press point of view, is that something we can decide on or what? So I think that just this, I feel like this is not a real issue that like we've got the Lennox Foundation administering a vote. If we can't trust the Lennox Foundation, like we don't really need observers. This is an international election for some actual political body. This is a steering wheel. It's not. This is an international body. Yeah. I think, what am I doing here? I thought this was big time. Shut down my hopes and dreams. Sorry. All right, I'll stop, I couldn't resist. I think in the last few elections, you really think you'd be invited to something this big time? So I'm really disappointed. I finally made it in this big voice. Okay, stop it guys. And this is what happened. All right, Mark was disappointed. I think in the last few elections, people that were running for the TSC were involved in helping plan the election and things like that. And that's why I had proposed, we have people that aren't candidates be, and I'm not saying anything wrong happened, but it's just not a good optic. And having the observers are people that can help the hyperlegia staff with the election and they're not running for office so there's no conflict of interest or potential conflict. It seems to me like this is an inexpensive way to add a lot of transparency. And it also gives an opportunity for more people to get involved with the elections process which hopefully helps the staff have some extra hands to help make the load lighter. So it seems like an easy thing for us to do that helps a lot with the PR benefit of what we do with the elections already. What are they helping with? Tracking down people who have the no reply email addresses, making sure all the projects know that elections are coming up and that they need to notify people to go vote. It's kind of just that the outreach makes sure to get out the vote happens and that all the projects are fairly notified. So I wanna talk to like a couple of technical points that were kind of in there that may inform your discussions and Tracy I think knows where I'm gonna go with this. On the back end, once we send the ballots out we don't have any, I can't tell who has or has not voted. So there's no way I can reach out to people who haven't voted. If I were to reach out and re-send ballots all I can do is copy paste the list of the ballot email addresses the second time and it will send the ballots out. If people who have already voted will not be able to vote again but they'll get another email. So on the back end, we don't actually see that. And I proposed before and I'm willing to do it again. I'm willing to set up a mock election using the tool and I invite anyone on the TSC or anyone at all we can do this and you can see how the tool works from a mechanical side on the back end. So that may inform some of your discussions. But, well, I'm not sure how though. Can you expand on this, what you're thinking? I mean, you're part of the stuff in very involved in this voting process. Do you feel like these observers as Dan was describing would help you or not? The only piece I was speaking to there was where Dan was talking about. So the get out the vote is good. I'm all in board with everything up to the point where it was reaching out to people who hadn't voted. I can't get a list of people who have not voted. Yeah. Yeah, and I agree with that. I think what these folks would do is just make sure that in the past, they've had some trouble where maybe one project got a lot of notifications about the election and another project didn't and so they felt like perhaps things were sandbagged one way or another. Someone like an observer can make sure that, you know, everyone was notified or can just tell everybody, yes, the staff did everything they were supposed to do. We watched this whole process. You know, that way when there's questions, there's someone that can say, this is what we've always done, this is how the process worked and we know that the process was followed. And that way we don't have to deal with as much flack as maybe we've gotten in the past. So I'm in favor of that. I can think mechanically how we can do that. So I can work with an observer to propose a process by which we can do this in a public way with the observer and preserve the privacy of the people who are getting ballots. So I can think about that. OK, so that would be good if you could come up with a bit of expectations as to what observers would, what function they fulfill and how this auto selection volunteering mechanism comes into play. Maybe we can flesh out a little bit the proposal with something more concrete that we could actually agree to. Yeah, I'm willing to make a slightly more concrete proposal with regards to the mechanical aspect at the end. So I'll take that. Thank you, Ray. Any other input for a ride before we move on? Probably just like we've had for the last few discussions, if we try to get too detailed in the proposal, then we will end up discussing every detail. Yeah, I have to try to find the sweet spot. It's not easy. But OK. All right, so now back to the voter selection then. As I said before, I mean, what I would like us to do is to clearly capture the way it's been done. And we have a short description of that in the proposal. If you look at it right now, it says, for TSC election 2019, I believe I got that from Ray. I asked him, how is this working? But maybe I forget exactly the source of this. But there is a description for whatever it's worth. And what I would like us to do is, essentially, my idea is this is the status quo. And if we do nothing, we just redo exactly this, whatever that means. And if people have an issue with this, the burden is on them to come up with counterproposal on how to edit this text to match what they think it should be. I cannot think of a better way to make progress on this. If you guys have ideas, I'm all ears. I am totally fine with this. What I want to happen is I want the TSC to, I don't want to catch a bunch of flak again, about people who feel they weren't represented. I want the TSC to own the list, who has the franchise and who does not. And if it is as simple as they may get commit, I'm totally fine with that. We just need to wait. And go ahead. No, but I totally feel for you on this. And I completely support your point of view. It's totally unfair for people to give you slackness. I mean, this is not right. And we have made those decisions before. And we have defined an exception process for people to register and all that good stuff. And some of it was that our process was not as well documented as it should have been. We've already made all the decisions we have regarding the TSC election to have a plan put up together, beforehand approved. So we take more time to announce it to everybody. So I feel like if we do that right, at least in terms of transparency, we should be better. I think there's always people who are going to feel like, well, you're not counting that as a technical contribution. That's wrong in my opinion. And that's fine. They can try and make a case to the TSC for changes in this regard. But for now, I think that is what it is. And the burner is on them to convince the TSC to change this. I see Brian is joining the call. Yeah. I think we kind of sidestep the issue on privacy. I think we can postpone that one. So I'd like to hear again from other people. I mean, we got to the plan I just laid out on starting from the existing text and the tool that it links to, which we have to thank Tracy for having worked on this. And there is a very clear process here. If people don't like it, they should make concrete proposals on how to change the process. And I will point out this tool is public. It's in a Git repo. And there's nothing to stop people from cloning this tool and running it against GitHub themselves. So people can run this tool throughout the year, if they wish, and find out what's going on. So this is extremely true. Yeah, you can also run it against a particular project. So if project maintainers are concerned that their contributors are not included in the list because of a no reply or something like that, they can run it against their project and see exactly who has no replies and reach out to them and actually update the mail map file to include the right email address that they want to be contacted at. For my own reason, I wrote this tool repo lister, which you can run, which generates a list of all the current repos. So in order to feed the tool that Tracy wrote, so the stuff exists. Yes. So I think what that means though is that the tool should not be changed in a way that affects the selection, that impacts the selection with that TSE approval. That way you can keep blaming us if somebody's not happy with the way it works. I mean, if there is a bug, it's one thing. You fix a bug because you're missing a repo or something, that's fine. But in the principles of the selection, if there was a change in the rules, then probably it should be endorsed by the TSE. For sure. And again, it's not because I don't trust you're trying to do the right thing. It's really more because I want you to have the backing of other TSE and say, hey, don't blame me. Yeah, no, I think the maintainers of that lab are myself, Rye, Chris, and potentially a couple of others who were interested in community labs at that point. All right. So unless there's any other comments, that's the plan for. I think it's a good plan, to be honest. In the charter, 4A2 says that the active contributors are those who have ever been accepted into the code base. So if you're running it against master, and it presumes the maintainers accepted it, I think that quite nicely covers that particular clause from the charter. Thank you. Any other comments, reactions? If not, then I think we are done for this today. Just one last comment. Go ahead, Hall. Can we give the LF staff sort of some agency to do it, they think, to run a fair election? Because I just want to, I could add a commit and get it approved where it includes thousands of dummy addresses or something like that. And I just want to give the LF staff providence to deal with stuff like that. Well, I think if anybody sees any kind of oddity, such as the one you describe it, you know, they probably will raise a flag. That's what I would expect that to say, okay, somebody is playing some game here. Right, but it would technically, like, not be against the rules right now. I understand. But this is what I said. They can easily bring it up to us. And I'm sure we will quickly agree to discard those. Because I mean, I don't know if it's hard to find, but if it's there, it's, the evidence is in the pudding, right? That's like, that's pretty clear. Very right. I just, ideally we can just get out and, you know, say that this is the case. So we don't, we're not doing this like three days before the election or something. Yeah, you see what you mean. So we should have some kind of clause that calls for this to have ground for this kind of ruling. Is that what you're looking at? Yeah, just a paragraph or something that says, like, you know, the, giving the LF staff power to remove what they think are fraudulent commits or fraudulent voting efforts or something. Just so that, like, if Rai, right, look, if I create an Ursa commit that has the email addresses like blocky McChain face with the number one through 5,000, Rai should be able to go and remove those without asking the TSC. Yeah, I think to make it complete, they should still report it to the TSC, get through, you know, notify the TSC and proceed. Something like this. Yeah, that sounds good. That way, if somebody feels like, okay, they're overstepping the, the, the responsibility, we can easily intervene and otherwise, we can just trust them and move forward. So we're not blocked. Yep, that sounds good. Okay, we can add something to that. In fact, I think that's a reasonable addition. Thank you. Anything else? Okay, if not, I think we can leave it at this for today. I am happy to take a crack at what we just discussed to update the, the issue proposal on the page. And maybe we can have a vote on that sooner rather than later. And again, I mean, if somebody feels there's something else missing, please comment to the page and we will accommodate as we always do. All right, we have five minutes left. Is there anything else? From my point of view, this is more than enough to call this a successful call. So I'm happy to call it today. But if there's anything else that anybody wants to bring up before we close, we can maybe do that. Okay, hearing none, we will close the call on this. Thank you all for joining. Talk to you again next week. Bye.