 Just maybe one more minute. I know that there was a potential vote that Dave wanted to propose related to releasing the audits, just like automatically, if there are no high-risk items. So we'll wait maybe 30 more seconds and then we'll go. Yeah, it was just a procedure change. It's not a really major debatable thing, I don't think. So we could do a vote over email if we don't get quorum today. It's no big deal. So I guess let's go ahead and get started. Welcome everyone to the February 21st TSC meeting. Hopefully you've all had a chance to read the antitrust policy notice to ensure that we comply with that. As always, everyone is welcome in the hyperledger community. Everyone is free to participate and speak up in this form. So please feel free to send a message in the chat. We prefer to use the TSC channel in the rocket chat if you have any comments, or just unmute yourself and speak up in this form. Looks like we have one announcement to get started related to the internship program, so I'll pass that over to Solana for that call. Hello, yes. So we only have one proposal up so far. We were hoping that maybe we'll get some last minute ones in today before tomorrow's deadline, but we're also thinking about extending the deadline. I'd really like to encourage everyone to consider talking, to talk to their project about submitting a proposal, because this is a really good way to both increase your contribution, the types of contributions you get, as well as we're going to be working a lot on upping the diversity of these interns, and so that becomes another way to also work on that as well. Dave, did you want to talk a little bit about being a mentor and what all you did and how it went for you? Yeah, I'd be happy to. So last year I mentored a grad student working on what now is the Umbra Lab. It was really great. I just, it really is a not very heavy lift, I guess is the point I'm trying to get to here, because I had an initial meeting with all the candidates, I picked a candidate, and then it just came down to having a regular weekly meeting with the intern, and mostly just email back and forth. A lot of times my role as a mentor was just getting the intern plugged into the right people in the community. So being a mentor for one of these interns is really just about knowing who knows what and helping them get involved in the chat and mailing lists and things like that. So I don't know, I really just saw my role as trying to bring them up as an open source developer, and I'm pretty sure all of you on this call are good at that. So I highly encourage any of you, and all of you to volunteer as a mentor. I think it's a fun experience actually. So Chris and I were having discussions internally with their colleagues, and pretty confident we'll have at least one proposal if not two. I have two right now in the works, one with an opposite university, and one with myself actually. So interesting. And if y'all need any help scoping out those projects, feel free to contact the community architects team at community-architects-hyperledger.org, and we can help you in regards to the scoping of that, as well as Min. But I know sometimes with Min she's not as technical as we are, but if you need any help in regards to that, please contact one of us so that we can help you work on it and get it through. Yeah, we do have a great post-mortem doc from last year that I think did a good job capturing a lot of the lessons learned. So if you, you know, need more guidance there. Can you add that link to the announcement? Yes, I'll have to find it later. It was pre-new weeky, so it's probably somewhere around here. All right, yeah, I appreciate it. On this, Silas here, I was talking to Casey, our CEO, and it's a really busy time for us at the moment because we've just launched our actual paid-for product. So we're quite concerned about yet more distractions. However, I did have an idea for a project, which was to see if we could get someone to run all of the public Ethereum chain through Borough, something I've wanted to do for a while, and I'm pretty sure he's going to break stuff. I would definitely be, and I was wondering about whether to put in an application for the closing date for an intern. Casey was not so keen unless we could get some help from like Hyperledger, like maybe a tech ambassador or stuff. I think the issue that we have is unlike some other projects that really like, it's members of our team. We do have Fimbert, who is around, but he's also got a full-time job. So I caught the end of what Dave was saying there about it not being such a heavy lift, which pushes me in the other way a little bit. But yeah, I don't know what the capacity for a bit of official help from someone from Hyperledger maybe is, or just something I could take to Casey and have him say, look, this will only take a kind of small, constant factor on the time I'm already spending doing Borough stuff. The case I'd make is one, we're putting $5,000 into this for each mentee, so it's not a volunteer position for the mentee, which should, in optimistic cases, lead to actual stuff getting created. That's moderated, of course, with the fact that somebody's first time working on a, probably the first time working on a Hyperledger-related project, so it might not be as cost-effective as 5K spent on a maintainer. But then secondly, this does seem to be a good way to grow new contributors to a project. That's something we certainly need on Borough. That'd be the case I'd make to Casey if you were on the phone. Yeah, okay. Let me run that back and I'll say if we do go for it, I'll try and put it in next today. Okay. I know it's hard to find the time to do this, but if you'd craft the, because it's also up to you to craft what the mentee would be working on, and so hopefully you'd be able to craft it in such a way that it would be maximal impact for Borough. Low hanging fruit, better docks, something that you've been wanting to get around to, but just haven't, right, that sort of thing. Does it make sense to just extend it by a week at this point, and we'll be more proactive in getting things done? That's kind of what I wanted to propose to the group. I just wanted to make sure that if we did do it, that we would be getting a lot more things in before doing it because it does slow men down. That would help us a lot on the high hyperlature indieside. We're in the middle of the sovereign agent connected on. I know most people are worried about the testing process and then their live calls for the deadline this Friday, so I think we can get... Okay, I'll let her know. All right, great. Thanks, everyone. Okay, so moving on to the quarterly reports, we're going to start with the technical working from China. As a reminder, folks, it looks like the majority of the TSE has already read these overviews, so I request that whoever is going to present this just provide a very short update or bring up any questions that they may have to the hyperlature community or to the TSE itself. So do we have anyone on from the technical working group China? Yeah, let me share my screen. Yeah, and we actually already have it. We have it up here. So if you want, you can just go ahead and speak to it. Okay, our global health is very good. And in these cultures, we focused on four areas, the first one is development and innovation, the second one is international and education. I do see some comments on education. Actually, the project is we translate fabric document into Chinese. So far, the progress is very good. I will update later. And the third one is collaboration and scenarios. The last one is in optimization. And we do have issues because we have very long public holidays and people get a family together and do early planning. So we have life activities. And we learned from our community and a lot of volunteers that language and time zone are major barriers for them to contribute codes to attend meetings and surprise activities. Since our last report was on October 25th, so this report is from right on. And we hold our regular meeting every two weeks. And because of the spring festival, we cancelled one session. And by average, we have more than 20 participants. And we do encourage some people to attend our bootcamp in Hong Kong. I think this is really great. I don't mean to cut you off, but I think most of the folks have read this and you did a great job getting this in on time. So I just wanted to maybe rather than read through the rest of the document, see if there were any issues that you wanted to raise to the TSC or if any folks on the call had any questions about the TWGC that they would like to ask. I do have a question. Okay. When you talk about I-18N, is that only for documentation or you're also talking about messages in the code that you are looking at, separation of user-oriented messages into separate files so that it can enable translation later on? Yeah, for this project, so far, we just translate fabric documents. Okay. So that's an interesting thing for us here from TSC, whether this is something that, from whether it's each project or we want to have some kind of uniform development here that would recommend all the projects to enable I-18N at some point proactively by separating now the messages from our code so that it enable technical groups such as the loop in China to be able to translate into Chinese easily without having to mess around with the code later on. I totally agree with that being and I think it's a good idea to label both the code and even the for the documentation. Okay, thanks, Bao Hua. Go on, Zhenhua. Sorry, I just said my comment. Okay. But we think some local issues like language we make, we think we can improve education on or prepare some materials for beginners to learn like learning material. I had one question as well and I was wondering if there were any project proposals that looked like they were going to be coming sort of out of the TWGC. So I know that I think we had seen the fabric desktop and I'm not sure if that was a TWGC item, but I was just curious if there are any updates on maybe new projects that would be coming out of this group. No, so far no. Okay, great. Thank you. Well, David, maybe I can add some more information. There's no tough project till now, but there are definitely some like improvement to existing projects. For example, we have people who proposed into the OSR project to implement the China standard of the cryptography and also we have developers who proposed to improve the fabric SDK for node and Python. Okay, that's great. And maybe a follow up on that or is there any feedback in the TWGC about how obviously the internationalization is one piece? Is there any other feedback on how we can make it easier for contributors in China? Yeah, Zhenhua, any comments? Yeah, because we change a lot and we see a lot of people talk about technical issues, but for them they are not easy to read our English document. So we translate it into Chinese and I do think some learning materials are helpful for them. In last year, we have evaluated several platforms for the translation, including the transfects. And finally, those contributors decided to use the GitHub and also the community with each other with the WeChat group. So that's the current way, yeah. I have a question. Is there a way to do some kind of a plugin into Rocket Chat that translates from English to Chinese and Chinese to English? Is there such a tool available? And if so, it would be great because in many other contexts, you can actually translate directly inside the integrated translators in many chat applications. Yes, we can translate between different languages in WeChat. Yeah, I mean, there might be some plugins or tools available. I was just, this is a question more for the Linux Foundation people and the people who administer the Rocket Chat. Vipin, I think the better solution would be something similar to what went on with the Telegram stuff, which was right a bot that links WeChat groups with Rocket Chat groups and vice versa. And then we could maybe leverage the translation in WeChat, but anyway, there's a lot of little wrinkles to this, Vipin. We should probably take it offline. Yeah, and I think maybe one other stopgap there would be maybe just trying to create like geo-specific channels in Rocket Chat for the projects. So maybe we could have like an indie China channel or something like that. Maybe that would be a useful feature for the various projects to adopt. Although this sounds like a great project for an intern over the summer. All right. Thank you very much, Shenhua. Are there any other questions on about the TWGC? No, so far, thank you. Okay. Thanks very much for filling out this update and I appreciate you presenting that. So we'll now move on to an update on Hyperledger Cello. Do we have anyone from Hyperledger Cello on to present the proposal? And as I mentioned before, please, if you could just touch on the couple highlights or any questions that you'd like to raise to the TSD versus reading through the entire update. Looks like Hytow had originally submitted this. All right. Is there anyone else from the Cello community that would like to speak to the progress with this project? Well, David, maybe I can ping Hytow to go along. Yeah, he's here. Let me ping him. Okay, great. I guess while you do that, it looks like there were some questions down here at the bottom. It looks like some of them were addressed, which was mainly about how Cello will work as Kubernetes support migrate sort of natively into these projects. And it looks like the plan is for Cello to support the native integrations of Kubernetes with each of the projects. Yeah, we do have discussed that inside the project. And there are comments that think Kubernetes might be very popular now and even in the future. And so we think we can support it, but considered for the roadmap, currently we are still, at the same time, we are still trying to support both the Docker and the VM and besides the Kubernetes way. All right, fantastic. Were there any other questions about the Cello project on the call before we move on? Hytow is online. Okay. Oh, yes, sorry. I'm late. Oh, no worries, Hytow. Just wanted to see if there were, we've roughly discussed the Cello updates and just wanted to see if there are any issues with the TSE or any high impact issues you'd like to raise with Cello. Okay, okay. So, I will report the quarter updates for the Cello. Actually, this course starts so far, we mainly to discuss and design the new architect for the Cello. The consortium governance model. And in the weekly meeting with Cello, there are many contributors involved in the discussion and design. Yeah. And there are no new releases in this quarter. The latest release version is 0.9 and we mainly support the Kubernetes department for the February network, but not all realized still cannot use SDK calling the new dashboard. And in the past quarter, we released 0.9. And so, you know, the main feature is the Kubernetes agent and we improved the user experience for the user dashboard. And the current plans is mainly around the consortium governance model. And we will rewrite the code architecture and separate the core code from the operator dashboard as an API service. So, in the future, we can unify the web framework for the operator and the user dashboard. And then, because we will use the Cello mode, instead of the crypto configure for the February network, so we will support February 1.4 and the later version. And we will discard the all the February version support. The priority was a matrix monitor for the February network is quite slow and maybe I think it will be supported in the future version, maybe not in the 1.0 version. Yeah. All right. Great. This is very useful. Did you have any questions for the TSE members or anything that was not captured here in the written update that you'd like to discuss? Okay. All right. Thank you. Very useful. Appreciate you providing the update and also coming in here to answer any questions. Thanks again. So, with that, I will pass it back to Solona to discuss some of our topics, including the APAC boot camp and the contributor summit. Okay. Hello. Solona here. So, the APAC boot camp is shaping up. One of the things that I am still looking for is representatives from sawtooth and fabric. I believe we've got pretty much all the other groups that I would expect to be representing, to be doing different sessions. And so, I'm working on getting that the schedule starting to fill out and the meeting with everyone to get all of their sessions all filled out. There's going to be a boot camp BC in Vancouver on March 11th. It's actually just Indian focus. And the indie team, thanks Nathan and others, are going to be reusing some of the materials that they're going to have at the Hong Kong boot camp for that one as well. And we're basically creating a cache of those learning materials to be reused. I'm still working on the timing for the Brazil and India boot camps right now as well. Brazil may be May. India was asking for June, which, if everything is production lies, we can do, but it'll be a little tight. So, I'm still negotiating on those pieces right now. Any questions in regards to the boot camps? Okay. On the contributor summit, I talked with the event staff about the possibility of doing something in Japan. They came back with, you would blow your entire budget, to which it basically becomes very crucial for us to find a free space if we wanted to do a one day of a smaller version of the contributor summit in Japan. And so, I believe some of the board members are going into asking to find out if that is possible or not. Can I get confirmation from you all on this call as to who is asking whom? I don't see Hart on the call. I know that Hart had said that he could go ask. So, I can follow up directly with Hart on that. Awesome. One of the other things that I was doing is suggesting that maybe instead of doing the full bone contributor summit that I wanted to do, that we do scale back to asking that a lot of our events have unconferencing days, which can be anything, honestly, and we'll actually measure a little bit better with things like the membership summit and the HGF, where basically, we add on an additional day that people fill in the sessions that they felt like they didn't get and are willing to run them and do things of that nature. And so, that's one of the things that I'm discussing with the event staff as to how much that would be and what that would look like. I think that might fulfill some of the needs that y'all were looking at. And so, I wanted to talk with y'all a bit about it a bit more while I discuss the do-ability with the event staff. So, are we still considering the contributor summit to be at the same time and co-located with other hyperledger specific events like member summit or global forum? That's hard to do for a number of reasons. Again, cost being one of them, unless we find a cheap location. The other is, they're very different audiences. I mean, there'll be quite a few people for whom there is overlap, but quite a few for whom there's not. And it is kind of nice for those for whom there is overlap to try to space these out over the course of the year. The next hyperledger global forum won't be until the first quarter of 2020. So, we wouldn't want to wait until that long to have the contributor summit. It's a toss up over, you know, if we were to find something affordable to be able to do it in Tokyo just before the member summit, then possibly so. But there might be more affordable options somewhere. Yeah, I think maybe one thing, given that the contributor summit is based on, you know, maintainers and high impact contributors, maybe one thing that we could also do is see if we can take a geographic look of what the demographics of that group are. That may be another way to, I guess, make it easier for folks. You know, I'm not sure if the majority of those folks are in the U.S. or Canada or APAC or what have you. Clearly, we want to have that in a variety of locations. I'm just thinking, one of the comments that I had heard on previous TSC calls is that it's going to be difficult to get out to Japan for the member summit and then maybe to Canada for the contributor summit and then maybe to, you know, I don't know, Europe for the global forum. So, maybe if we can figure out how to make the, if the member summit is a separate event, how to make that as low impact and as possible that may be a useful thing for us to look at. Hey, Kelly, I am on the call. This is... Hey, Hart, sorry about that. Sorry, no worries. And I'll reach out to some people and I'll keep everybody updated. Okay, thanks. And if anyone else has connections to corporations or universities in the Tokyo region and think that you may be able to get space for a small one-day event, please reach out to myself or Salona. That would be quite useful. Does anyone else have any thoughts or questions about the member summit? Okay. And then Salona, in the event that we're unable to secure any free space in Japan, it sounds like that's going to happen sometime in the Q3 timeframe in Canada. Is that correct? Yes. Yes. And the thing that we were looking at doing is something that's a little bit more structured than just an arm conference for it. It was going to be, you know, that consensus process that I was talking to you about in regards to the architecture. So it's a little bit more involved. It will have a pretty set agenda in regards to it. I will try to have it so that we have both the consensus creating mechanism as well as some unconferencing time separate, but it may end up extending the timeframe from two to three days, but I'm not quite sure yet. I'm trying to get all of that sussed out. But if we are doing these other unconferencing days attached to the other events where it's not strictly contributors, but instead it's a little bit more open so that we can get that organized. Yeah, then maybe just one question on the contributor summit. In terms of the agenda, how do you see that playing out? Is that something where we'll have some sort of email thread about what the attendees are hoping to discuss? I'm just trying to think about how will we ensure that that's a productive use of those folks' time. A lot of it will be on the Wiki. It'll be something that's a little bit more structured on the Wiki because I wanted to do themes for them and the theme that I wanted to do was interoperability and architecture. There would be a lot of different things that we would already have scoped out and suggested in regards to that. It is about bringing all the major contributors and maintainers to the same place so that we can have a really good and depth discussion about those topics. Okay, great. Thank you. I'll be scoping it out on the Wiki once we know if we're going to be able to do something as structured as I would like to have done, but if we're doing an additional just one day tacked on to the member summit, then it becomes a little different for me in regards to creating those agendas. All right, great. Sounds like the next discussion item is the security audit. Dave, do you want to give us an update on that? Yeah, sure. I sent an email thread two actually earlier this week, one about the release of the composer security audit that was conducted late last year. It looks like I have enough plus ones from the TSC and the mailing list to go ahead and do that, but during that discussion, I don't remember exactly who suggested it, but someone suggested from the TSC suggested that we do a formal change to the process where the security audits just get released automatically if all high and medium critical security bugs are resolved, addressed and resolved, or there aren't any serious issues found and that the only time I would need to get TSC approval is if we for whatever reason decide to release the report while they're still outstanding high and medium criticality issues. So all I'm asking for right now is just maybe a quick vote if we have quorum on the small process change. Any questions? Yeah, I think that sounds good, but yeah, I would second that. Are there any concerns with that approach for anyone on the call? No, I think it's good. I'm all for streamlining your process as much as possible. Yeah, I should point out that this will also, this will not eliminate the blog posts and announcements that go around, you know, in conjunction with the release of these reports. So everything else is going to stay the same. It's just I won't bug you guys for a vote. Well, I think awareness would be worthwhile to need to be voted on, but I think making sure that there's a heads up, you know, it's going to be published this week, or, you know, whatever is probably in order. Sure. And more than just an email just to make sure everybody's paying full attention, I don't know about everybody else, but I get a lot of spam. So you want me to put it on like the TSC agenda and say, yeah, just for awareness, here's what is coming and here's the review. You can take a look at it. I think it'd be useful. Okay. But that, there was, there was a sort of a side discussion though on that thread, I think, and that was about, you know, you know, is it just 1.0s that we're going to be doing a security audit on and what happens with subsequent major releases where there's huge changes in function or whatever. Do we have a policy or anything in place that I know of that addresses that? It seems to me like we should have a conversation, not to have it now, necessarily, but I think, I think it's worthwhile to sort of have a think about, you know, what it means, you know, for this, for this community to be issuing code that's so fundamental, so fundamentally sort of related to security and trust and yet not have a process for subsequent major releases. Yeah. Thanks for bringing that up, Chris. That's really a sage observation. Just to give everybody an update on that, I am fully aware of the lack of procedure and process around this. I've been discussing this with internal staff for the last two quarters, three quarters or so. There's a number of issues related to that. I'm in the process of developing metrics to measure code churn and major changes to security sensitive code like APIs and cryptography and things like that. And so the short answer is I work every day a little bit on developing this policy, so my plan was to bring this to the TSC fairly soon, actually. We're getting to a point where I could have an answer and a proposal for this, but you're right. There is no official policy and I will be seeking the advice of the TSC here very soon. And then the other related thing is I had a chat this week from an IBM perspective with our colleagues at GitHub and I think they're fishing around. I think they're going to do some things from a security perspective. They currently have a process of notifying the owners of somebody's having breakfast or maybe it's somebody sniffling like me, that they notify the owners of repositories when one of the modules or components typically node, I think initially, but is known to have vulnerability and then they send an email to the owner of that repository. The owner of the repositories, I think, is going to be somebody on the LF staff. How do we get if there are some of those GitHub notifications to the owner? How does that get back to the teams? I'm that guy. I figured as much. I didn't want to point fingers. No, that's fine. I went through all of the projects that are developed on GitHub and added all of those projects, like all the sawtooth, all those other projects. I added those administrator and contributor teams to the alerts. So when they log in, they'll see the banner at the top of the page. I don't have any mechanism to do the same thing because there aren't teams. Nobody has commit access on GitHub. The way GitHub works, it's very difficult for me to surface that to you other than to forward the email, which I think is pretty low bandwidth. I'm open to any suggestions. I think the difficulty is if you're using Garrett, how often do you log into GitHub to see the banner at the top of the GitHub page? Never. So it would be setting up a parallel set of groups of people, making them committers or admins on these projects for the sole purpose of receiving this email. That seems not great. Brian, is there a way that we can just add the security at hyperledger.org email address to one of these accounts so that whenever those alerts happen, they just get sent to the security list? It's the same problem. No. We can discuss offline. So what would happen is you would get a truncated email. You get an email that has all of your alerts, and there are many, and then those people would need to log in as the security at person to see the actual alerts. So we have to set up an account. You would not get the full fidelity alerts if you did it that way either. So you get a general notice. There are problems. Yes, we already know there are problems. You would not get anything very actionable. I can shoot around a copy of the email that I get, but it's not anything that you're going to be able to work with. Yeah, let's discuss this offline, but I think there is something here that we can, there's definitely some improvement we can make, I'm sure. Oh yeah. All right, great. With that, do we want to move forward with a vote? I will also second Chris's thought there that a heads up would be nice. For me, email is fine. An update on the TSC would be fine as well. Six confluence emails. Don't do it for you. You know, yeah. Fundamentally, it's part of the problem. It's part of the managing your spam folder problem. I think it's great that you can, oh well, okay, I guess I have to go in there and figure out my settings, but if I dial them down, I'm still not going to get the ones that matter, right? So you can set to just get digest on confluence. And so I highly suggest that everyone go on their profile page and change it to digest. So that way you can go and see the granularity, but only get bugged once a day. All right, thanks. So I guess do we want to move forward with the vote on that? I'd like to propose that we make the security audit release automatic if there are no higher medium severity bugs that are unresolved. I second that we should do that. All right, great. I guess I'll go ahead and leave this all in favor. I, is anyone opposed to making the security audit automatic? May any of those? Thanks everybody. All right, fantastic. Thanks, Dave. Really appreciate that. Okay, I will pass it back to Solona to talk about the quilt reboot and the DNI meeting. Thanks. Actually, Ryle did the DNI meeting. The quilt reboot is still going. We had, I think, a pretty productive conversation with Silas yesterday in regards to it. I still have to get the architecture working group to come in and also talk with them next Wednesday. Right now I'm keeping things very open, though I am noticing a big conversation based off of protocols to support value versus asset transfer. And there was a little bit of a question in regards to standardization and what hyperledger can give on top of the ILP. But I'm trying to keep all the discussions right now very open. Since we had so much input in regards to this arena that I wanted us to first figure out where everyone is and get a good idea of the overarching needs of everyone before we sit down and figure out what the limitations are, because I told them that we would be bringing this back to the TSC and if there ends up being another project or if there ends up being labs or there ends up being a working group that comes out of it, then we needed to sort out what all exists first and then come to y'all with our proposal as to what that would look like. Silas, did you have anything to add about the meeting? Yeah, I found that quite useful. I think that probably expanding the scope of quilt sounds like the wrong thing to do. I think Raphael, from what he was saying there, I don't think the scope of the interledger protocol is particularly about state transfer. As I mentioned on the call, I think that there is a gap here for a working group that is on something like meta consensus that the idea of safely doing atomic swaps of state and or value between different chains, that's something I'd be interested in, although I don't know whether I'm interested in volunteering to be a chair of such a group, but if anyone is interested in doing stuff like that, so this would be basically having smart contract endpoints that allow you to lock up some state and or value on one end, check that it's locked up by your validators, and then generate it or release it on the other end. So this would work for potential transferring stuff from the Ethereum to Burrow, from Burrow to Sawtooth or whatever, but it sounds like there's not specific enough stuff for implementation to approach such a broad topic, and I think it would blur the quilt project, which is a ILP implementation. Thank you. Is there any other questions in regards to the quilt portion as to where we are? Was there anyone who wants to participate that hasn't been participating yet? We are going to have our next, I know that there was a conflict with Ursa this week, but we are going to be having another meeting next week, so I'm hoping. Yeah, I wanted to participate, but I missed the first two all together, so hopefully to make the next one. Okay, thanks, Ben. I'd appreciate it. Okay, I think that's it for the quilt reboot. Ry, did you want to talk on the DNI meeting? Sure, this will be fairly short. We had our bi-weekly community health committee meeting yesterday. I put some links in Rocket Chat, and we are continuing to work with chaos. We had a very good presentation from Mandi from Intel. I was hoping to have a link to give you to her presentation on how Intel handles some of the DNI issues. We are also working with Vitergia and Chaos on defining our metrics and getting those reflected in Chaos development so that all the projects have access to those going forward. The group is fairly active. The Chaos DNI group meets every week, and we would love more participation in general for Chaos, and I'll provide a link in the meeting to the Chaos space. I thought it was a little bit disjointed, but any questions? Ry, we also decided that the community health group was going to get a special space on the Wiki to share with people, correct? It sort of does right now, right? We have a community health committee space in the Hyperledger community tools home, right? We can move that, but we were already... I don't think they were aware of the fact that we've got a space and that it's starting to get scaled up. Okay, well, there's a link in the rocket chat channel to that space. It's the first link that I posted. We first brought this about as a working group, and we didn't meet the bar as a working group, so now we're a committee, so I'm a little bit gun shy about creating a top-level space for it. Well, let's just go ahead and share that link in the TSC notes so that the people can go in and see what the different progress is so that they can watch it. Thank you. Sure, so that covers the topics for today. As folks will notice, we are about a quarter behind on updates from the Hyperledger Composer project, so that project is looking for new contributors and new maintainers for that project, so if anyone on the call is interested in helping to continue to move that project forward, please reach out to myself or Solona, and as you see here, Quilt is also going through a reboot as well, so that's another area. Folks are looking to get involved that they can help out with. Before we end for the day, are there any other opens or topics that folks would like to discuss? I'd just like to encourage people to remember to help me put things in regards to the backlog so that we can make sure to keep things updated. Chris brought up the whole security policy and what that's going to be. Dave's already working on that for the project readiness update that he'll be doing later on. It's not quite ready yet, but it will be eventually, so if there are other things that, especially with me being newish that I'm not aware of, this is a really good place to put things in so that we can prepare reports for you. All right. Any other opens? Well, thanks everyone for your participation today. We'll meet again next week and hope everyone has a great weekend. Thank you. Thanks. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks everybody.