 All right, welcome everybody to the June 8th hyperledger technical oversight committee call. As you're all aware, you've been on the call before two things that we have to abide by the anti trust policy that is currently displayed on the screen and our code of conduct, which is linked in the agenda. So for announcements today, we have the standard Dev Weekly developer newsletter announcement. This newsletter goes out every Friday. If you have anything that you would like to include in that newsletter, please do leave a link at the comment at the link in the wiki page that is leaked here in the agenda. And then the second announcement is a reminder that David Boswell has put together the why and why not contribute to an open source community in a wiki page. It basically lists all of the individual items that were presented last week. And so he's looking for additional comments or ideas or thoughts on that so that he can update the presentation. So please do review and provide any sort of comments to that particular wiki page. The next announcement is that Steven will be presenting at the identity special interest group meeting on Thursday, the 15th, so a week from today, immediately following the TOC call. So if you are interested in understanding zero knowledge first with high school math, please do consider joining that sick call. Any other announcements that anybody has that they would like to make. So we did not receive any quarterly reports this week, we were supposed to receive the cello one last week, but that has not yet come in. I will send a reminder to the cello maintainers on discord. I think on Monday when I was putting the agenda together or finalizing the agenda for distribution so I haven't seen anything come back on that reminder so we will see what we can do to follow up. I also have the sauteed report that's still outstanding. I believe that I didn't put a link in here but I did send another reminder to the sauteed community on the discord channel to let them know why these things are important. Again, no response on that. When I was looking to see about the cello one I also checked to see if that action that you wrote had created an issue I did not plan an issue for cello. Just curious what might have happened with that. I forgot to ask right to add the. So we need to create a token and the token does not exist so the action was not triggered. I can work with right after this call and get that set up. Yeah, that was my fault sorry. No worries just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something. I thought maybe I missed where the issue was being created so I wanted to check on that to make sure that there wasn't anything there. So that'd be great. We'll get those set up and that will help us to track both of these particular issues for sauteed and cello to see if we could get some action via get up. Any questions on quarterly reports or comments on the quarterly reports. Okay, so for upcoming reports we do have the firefly one that is due to come in today. So hopefully we will see that one showing up. And then I think the next one isn't due for a couple weeks. So we'll get that one obviously put into the agenda for next week. I can't remember which one it is but I think there's a couple of them that are coming to you in a couple weeks so we'll get those out there. So for the agenda today we have the CNCF project review. So Arun you had said something out this morning about an hour ago on the discord channel to kind of talk us through what is that we're looking at with the CNCF project review so I think at this point, I will hand it off to you to take us through that. Thanks Tracy. Can share my screen. I hope I'm sharing the right. Yeah, we can see the CNCF review process. Perfect. Okay, let's just understand. So I made notes looking into a few documents and also watching through some of the video recordings of this house and see if meetings run the Tuesday meetings run. Currently, there were a few observations that I made which could also help us in how we run our meetings. And so I'll keep this discussion purely objectively just to understand how those meetings run done to compare with ours and then and feel free to stalk me anywhere in between. And if you want to bring up any point or maybe take an action item that we can discuss later. First few observations on how the the TLC process is run within the CNCF, another observation that was evident to me while I was reading through. So I read through some of these documents as a new person who is trying to enter into the CNCF community. And what I found from the TLC documents was that all of the the wordings the way the contents were written. Some of them sounded positive in a way that there were so many encouraging words for me to when I read those things it felt like I should go and contribute immediately. And so, so from a project's perspective, let's say if I had a new project to be proposed to the TLC. One thing that stood out to me was that the way it was written was hey, there is incentive for me to go and apply my project under CNCF and then after the sandbox or maybe incubation process there is also incentive for me to go and apply for the next process and the way these incentives are called out is not by saying that hey, if you do the next process you will get these benefits, but rather the way it is put out is through constant reminders right saying that hey, so you are now a sandbox project, but here are the next three actionable items and if you feel like you meet these three criteria, then maybe you are in for the next phase of your project within CNCF. So, I like that approach when I read through that process and to set the context CNCF has three life cycle, project life cycle phases, starting from sandbox incubation and graduation. There was a direct entry allowed to incubation and with with of course some extra checks that they have put up. So, talking through what is sandbox project intake and then CNCF, the sandbox project also do require TOC approval once. And one of the thing that stood out was also in terms of review on how these project intake happens. So, CNCF has multiple tags. I don't know how to equate it to hyper ledgers groups that we have. But these technical assessment groups, they, they are focused on certain areas of technology. And there were tags on security, there were tags on storage, there were tags on compute. Maybe I'm forgetting whatever I read, but there were multiple tags. If you go through one of the meeting recordings, they also do a tag review. In each of this tag are led by independent groups who have their own, who run their own meetings, they have their own agenda set. And the TOC has a regular cadence calls with these tags and they review the recommendations coming in from these tags. So, this is about the tag review process and that happens for every sandbox proposal that happens. The next thing was in terms of the review purpose. So, the CNCF TOC has set a specific agenda for why they want to review. And this also serves as a reminder for project team to understand the importance of the review that they put up. And it is annual review that project teams go through. There are two objectives through the review process, right? One is they would of course like to know if project is on track. And the second one is if projects need additional help from the TOC. When I say if project needs additional help from the TOC, I saw that they go to the extent of asking, hey, so you are a project which, I mean, your project would be successful if you have, let's say, access to the cloud service providers. So maybe we will go and talk to this company and they may offer you. So the TOC does help working with the staff to get those kind of questions addressed as well for the projects. So, one thing that I could not clearly put in a pointer was how would TOC measure if projects were on track. But based on some of the other observations that I had when I was searching through the documents and the videos. And what I found was, so we'll also discuss that in detail, that the annual process review of the projects, they also have a section for goal setting of each project. And in the, in the review process, the goals are measured as well. Right. So that's about the purpose of the TOC review that happens within CNCF. We will continue on understanding how the process itself is set up and how the process is run. So the way process, the way it starts is the CNCF staff will go and send an email reminder to the project maintainers. And the thing that is appreciable over here is these served as a personalized request to the project maintainers. And I like the way those emails were sent out, asking for projects in a way that tell them, hey, it is important, not just for you, not just for us. It is important for our community members to understand how crucial is your project to the success of the CNCF's goal that we have. And once the project team receives the reminder, they would submit a PR review similar to how we have within Hyperledger Foundation. One thing that happens over here is the project team has given about two months of time to send a report from the time the email was sent. And in that two months project team is supposed to, as I said previously that each project will set their own goals, right? So the project team is supposed to come back and say how they met the goals that they have set for themselves over an year ago. And also at the same time in that particular review process, they are required to set the goal for the next year in the review process. So the goal measurement is done by the TUC. And again, I could not find the concrete evidence of how the goal is measured by the TUC members. And of course, they also recognize that it is subjective. So a few of the things that they have called out in their review process or at least in the documentation that I read through was that they have called out the importance that not everybody in the TUC may understand how the project team understands the project and how they respond to the goal setting and how to measure those things. However, TUC makes all the attempts to get the right answer to any doubt that they have. And this could mean that they will have the tag that we spoke about go and review those and they will also put the project's review in open and request for comments from anybody. We'll also see some of the other observations, right? So which makes it unique. So that's about the review process. And, and of course the TUC has set up some certain guidelines for how to measure a project's health. And these are very similar attributes like the way we were discussing in terms of what's the strength of the community and how many developers do they have? How many emitters do they have? And what's the organization diversity on that aspect? One additional thing that I found out through the review is that the CNCF projects, they have a Grafana like that. I mean, I think it's Grafana dashboard itself. I've added a link over here. Let me see if I can pull that up. Yeah, this one. So this dashboard, they call it DevStats site and has certain attributes measured against each of the project. You can see like these many dashboards are set up over here. For instance, there are comments related trending dashboards over a week or a month and all of that. And the project teams are required to write this information in their review process. I'm not sure if the latest review process is using LFX, but the one that I referenced is all from 2022, early 2022. The project teams is supposed to set the link from this and one additional observation is that there is enough opportunity for the project team. Instead of asking them specific questions on, hey, can you talk us through the diversity of, let's say the developer diversity or commuters diversity or organization diversity. The project team is given an opportunity to tell what they feel is important from their stats. So of course, like you would be interested in certain aspects, which we can always review from the stats page, but the one thing that they liked about it is where project teams are given freedom to express what according to them is important from the stats. And of course, there are projects which span across like a umbrella of projects instead of having like one big project and they all of the sub projects are reported under one big umbrella project in the review process. So one differentiation that I found in the complete review process is the project teams have to go through something called a sponsorship process. And this is not like one time sponsorship, which once you get then the project has sponsorship forever. This is rather an annual sponsorship, which I could understand from the process. The annual sponsorship process is any project that comes in for the sandbox requires at least two or three members to agree or maybe like sponsor the project. And the sponsorship stays with them for a year. And after a year as per their annual process, they have to again go through the sponsorship and then this is tied to their review as well. And the project is reviewed the sponsorship either stays or it gets revoked. And another important aspect that I found from the sponsorship aspect or maybe the voting aspect was. So let's say the project is now in a graduated state. That's the highest level. And after the review of. Oh, sorry, my bad. Okay, let's say the project is in incubation state and project applies to go to the next next phase, which is the graduation phase. And let's say at that point in time. There are no sufficient votes from the TOC saying that this project is still not ready to go into graduation phase. The voting would immediately be converted this into whether the project should stay in incubation phase. And let's say for some reason project fails to prove that they should continue staying in incubation phase as well. The voting then turns into whether the project should be kept in sandbox phase. So there is flexibility in terms of how the projects are moved across the phases. And for each phase, there is voting done. So it's not that just because project could not move from incubation to graduation that it can stay in incubation forever. The moment comes where they will know how to review that they can continue staying in incubation phase. That's one other difference that I could find on the review process. So in terms of the TOC review, the reviews are put or the tag review before it goes to the TOC from decision making. And of course, TOC is the decision maker, but TOC recommends that the tags participate and TOC will take every comment provided from the tag seriously. And those will be debated on in the review meetings. There is also like an email sent to the community saying that there is a pending review and anybody could pitch in and add their comments. And I wanted to bring that up later, but let's say within the TOC, they designate one of the lead and one of the TOC member to lead a particular project's review. Right. So what happens is the TOC will designate one of the person from within among themselves. And then that person will be the spokesperson for the project we can say or maybe that person leads the review process for the project. So the the assigned person will have a detailed review of project reading through every aspect. And there is also a private chart channel setup where that only the TOC members will have discussions regarding the points brought up by the by the lead who's reviewing. And once the TOC member who's designated has done their sufficient review, they will bring that the summary into the TOC meeting. And the summarized form of review discusses on focused points from each of the project and the project team is also invited to join that particular meeting. So it's it's like among one of the among the TOC member one of them is being an advocate for the project and they are saying what went well what what can be done well in an objective form. And they collect all the reviews from the tag and from the community during that review pending process. That's one additional difference that I could observe from the CNCF. So, yeah, there is a fixed deadline for by when the project team is supposed to put up the review, the project review, and that was two months. And the TOC can make decisions to change the status of project, because if a project could not send an update for two months, then the question is about activeness or health health. In as of the project itself. And so in the in just in terms of process review process, as I previously said, there is a section call out where instead of asking projects to answer certain things the way there is a section where the way it is portrayed is, hey, you're a project maintainer and then you're doing all that you can do at this phase of project. But here are the next three questions that if you feel you can answer them and it's like one line answer maybe like the checkbox kind of questions, then maybe you're eligible to move into the next phase. So do give it a try and like come back with a proposal that you want to move to the next phase. And yeah, the project teams are sent an invite to join requesting them to join the TOC call. And there is a TOC representative who leads the projects, the project status or report to the TOC, they would be advocate for the project. Right, so one addition thing that I could see from the meeting recording was that the TOC did not. They did due diligence before the report was sent to the meeting, right. So in the during the meeting, if a project team joined that call, then the TOC made sure that they gave opportunity to the project team to talk few other aspects which are which they could not put up in the report. And this could be anything in terms of request or this could be just in terms of comments or feedback that they want to collect or anything that the project team did not want to put up in the written form in the report. Right, so there was a free text as well in the report where project team could tell what according to them went well and what's the standpoint from their project. So I, I mean I did not capture all these metrics but the kind of information that the TOC was looking for from a health standpoint was total contributors, organized in diversity. The adoption aspect is something that the NCF TOC strongly was following up with all the projects. So they would recommend projects to have a means of knowing how off, how critical their project is or how often, how widely is the project adopted across. The goal setting and the goal measurement is one other thing which gives opportunity to project team to set the goal for the next year and it gives opportunity for the TOC to know if project is ambitious enough to go and do next set of things. So in terms of responsibilities, of course there are additional responsibilities set up. It's not just like all the TOC members go through in their own leisure and then they review and then they come back but rather there is a responsible lead or a TOC representative assigned for each of the project. And the person who is designated is supposed to be the spokesperson of the voice of the project across all the forums from the chart of the private conversation that happens among the TOC members. And the public review that happens through the email or even the project team if they need more information and they are supposed to summarize all of these discussions before they come for review into the TOC call. And we already spoke about the tags and one thing that I liked from the TOC process is also in terms of the way the project reports are brought to the TOC call and they were not a verbose text when they were discussed in the TOC meetings but rather a specific bullet points that were brought up. Because the lead already has wetted the document in detail and if there are any contentious questions or topics then they make bullet points out of those and then they bring those points for discussion. So one more thing which stood out or which was different was in terms of technical due diligence. So when I read through the document understanding what the technical due diligence process is all about and like what's the group doing. So what TOC did and this may be related to the review annual review or this may be related to let's say the sandbox entry or the incubation entry of the project. I could not make sufficient distinction when exactly the TOC follows this process but they had the process called technical due diligence. So this is a separate committee or a group of people who do the technical deep dive into the project and they do all the due diligence and it's open for comments. It's not just the committee community who is part of this due diligence process are involved. In fact the process is open for anybody in the community but the TOC would like to have a report from the DD team as part of the approval processes whenever it is involved. So and of course the TOC did set up a general guidelines on what's the responsibility of due diligence team and what are they supposed to do and how can they keep their discussions or the points objectively. Like there is defined set of guidelines around that for the due diligence process. So yeah this is all from the review process and when I was reading so some of the documents I also found that one aspect which might help us as well as for any project to graduate CNCF mandated that the project has its own governance mechanism. And this governance mechanism spans across for everything and they mandated that there is a strict versioning scheme in terms of releases. They mandated that there is a strict process set up for any new community member who wants to contribute and there should be a strict pathway for them to move or become a maintainer of the project and all that right. So I'm not going to go into details of what the governance mechanism guidelines are put up like it's mandatory for each project to have one. So and apart from the due diligence and the tag review just for projects to enter into CNCF there is also this process or optional process of thick presentations that happens. Which I mean if we want to equate this to hyperlature then there is a request that to see makes a project teams to come and present. But I failed to understand clearly what the sick presentation means I don't know exactly if this is like a special group which works with the project or this is part of the to see itself. So that's about the CNCF to see and your review process and the highlights are the things that I liked or the summary of the review process. So just there are a few other points that I felt could help us from hyperlature like for instance in terms of setting up the agenda items or how the to see meetings happen. They do have a running document where agenda items are put up and one thing that I liked over here is like everybody knows what's up for to see to discuss. In the next meeting or so. And the other thing that I liked in the way. The meeting agenda set is they have designated time in the year where only certain things happen, right, for instance, once every two months there is a designated time. When the tag reviews happen and there is a designated time in the year where the project review processes happen happen and in those to see discussions and those to see meetings. There are no other agendas picked up and I think we discussed about the fallback voting process that CNCF follows and then in each to see meeting there is only one agenda like they do one thing in each meeting. And and in the sum of the recordings that I saw I never came across a verbose way of reviews right I know like this this page itself goes against my own point because I have so much data on this page. But that's something. And last but not the least, I found that you see me things they run with their cameras turned on. And I pasted a link for one of the meeting will also the review happens and that you see if you call. So that's the summary. I will take a pause and open up for discussion. Thank you or no. David. I do like the idea of an annual review I've kind of thought that was something that we've been missing I know we used to have projects come and present their reviews to us instead of just doing the report. So I think maybe once a year it would be good to actually have a project representative come and do the review live I think that would help. I also like the idea of having an advocate for the project. Or like a TSE member that is an advocate for the review I'm not sure if they're an advocate for the project in general like that was one of my questions is can the TSE member that's that's the representative for the review be a member of the project or should it be an outsider. I could not find the general guidelines, but that's a question we can get go back and probably ask somebody from the CNCF or maybe read to some of their documents. I tried reading searching for any recommendations on that I could not find any. Okay, thanks but but good job and I do like the idea of the annual review. Yes, Pete. Thank you. You mentioned these seasonal tasks that they have, but they don't add anything else to the agenda. Do you happen to know what is roughly the ratio of those type of meetings that they have versus the open agenda items type of meetings, like most of the year is it open agenda or do they actually spend most of the year just with specific tasks that then don't have agenda items on the meetings because of them. Good question. I did not create any start around that but few things were like projects had annual review. So I'm assuming there are like designated months where only the review happens for all the projects and every two months they have a tag review process. So once in two months I'm assuming they do have a cadence call for tags to come in and present. But that's a good question. I think I've taken the feedback. If possible, I will go back and get some answers on that question. The agenda distribution aspect, right? You want to start around how that, okay. Yeah, thank you. All right, if nobody is speaking, I will jump in and say, I agree with the review, the annual review. It seems to be kind of like a middle ground from the extremes we went through. One which was to have projects report, you know, basically come and present the report every time to not having them come at all. I think that's a good compromise. Thanks so much. Hey, Tracy. Hey everyone. So I guess I have a couple of questions or thoughts on this that we should probably discuss. One is, is annual enough, given that projects can go inactive within a quarter. So obviously, you know, I think annual is a way to ensure that we're at least looking at things on a regular basis, although the quarterly reports should help us somewhat with that. I'm just not sure we're diligent enough with the quarterly reports to be able to see some of the stuff that we need to see. And then, you know, is the, is the general suggestion. Okay. And I feel like the CNCF process is a lot deeper than what we do with the quarterly reports because somebody actually goes through and really looks at the you know, the specific details. And so, you know, is that what we're suggesting when I hear, like Dave and I know you're suggesting that the project come in on an annual basis and discuss what's happening is that we still have somebody in the TRC who's doing that deeper diligence. And so I think those are kind of the discussion items I'd like to talk through. I guess I'll comment since I also agreed with the annual review. So I do still think the quarterly reports written reports would have value I'm just thinking a deeper dive once a year would also be good. And I do think I like the idea of having a TSE member talk to that person maybe before the report, review it before they come to the TSE make sure they're kind of on point and going to the right level of detail and pushing them on areas they need to be pushed on before their reports to the whole TSE. Thanks. So, what you're suggesting is we have a new deep dive in addition to the quarterly report that we already have. Yes, I think so. Thanks David. Hey Jim. Yeah, thanks Aaron. Thanks for doing this work. I guess first a point of clarification I believe we're all assuming the review process is done to both sandboxes and incubation. Is that correct because in your right of it's all sandbox. Good question. I tried searching for documents or meeting recordings but I could not find the, at least the DOC document explicitly mentions it's a sandbox review process and box annual review. Yeah, but I am assuming they should also do this for incubation. Yeah, so I think from David and Tracy, I believe we are talking about mainly for the incubation projects because I feel like that's where we need some rejuvenation so to speak. And honestly, I think it's a tougher process compared to reviewing the equivalent of the sandbox, maybe our labs or applications because for incubations you have to hold the project team responsible for, particularly in the case of lack of progress, you know the TOC needs to do its job, we're calling those out, and I'm an engineer, I'm not good at doing those type of things but we need to, you know, we need to force ourselves to do our job, because I think that's where TOC's responsibility really lies, right. So, yeah, just want to call this out. I believe that's the assumption when David and Tracy spoke. Just want to confirm. It's Tracy. Yeah, so I do I do think that we're talking about incubation and graduated projects within the High Collegiate Foundation. I think, you know, CNCF's process is more towards what we would consider labs and potentially moving labs forward. I think that there's probably some use in thinking about what we want to do with labs from the perspective of do they want to stay as a lab. Are they active? Should we be doing anything with them? But I think that the request from the governing board was specifically for our incubation and active projects. And then, you know, I think, Jim, you've made a really good point about, you know, doing our jobs, if you will, from the perspective of in the past, the TOC hasn't wanted to be very strict in how we approach projects, right. I think that would have been a bit more open and lenient about projects that are maybe not submitting their project reports or things like that, right. Like, this would really make us have to be very diligent about, you know, what it is that these projects are doing and what we're going to do with them, right. So we would, as we think about documenting a process, we have to be thinking about what are the potential outcomes, right. So what is the, you know, kind of state diagram, if you will, that we would be putting together, you know, that project lifecycle. Each of those lines, when would we in this project reviews move along one of those lines and what is kind of the criteria for that. I think is really something that is important. So I thank you for bringing that up, Jim. Thanks, Tracy. I raise my own hand so I'll probably go next. Regarding that process of labs and versus sandbox environment and CNCF. So sorry, sandbox phase in CNCF. I wanted to bring this also up for discussion, saying asking if we should include I know for now labs is not part of the TOC, the TOC does not want to get involved into that level of details. And just from an encouragement point of view, would it make sense if to see request for a annual review of these projects as well. And if any labs, so there is no punishment as such, if the project does not want to come up and present to the TOC, but rather it's an incentive if they come and present to the TOC then it helps them understand where they stand in terms of incubating further. And it also helps you see, or maybe in general, the community members to know what's the direction that community is moving towards and what kind of projects exist and where are the collaboration opportunities. Yes, Tracy. I think we're going to answer that question. One of the things that comes to mind is I think there's something in the range of 50 labs. That could be a bit of a challenge as far as timing, right, we could spend all of our time reviewing labs in these meetings. And if half of the labs decide that they want to present, right, that's still 25. So, you know, I guess the question becomes, you know, in the past, I guess, just, well, in the past in the recent past what we've done is to say well these these labs look like they're interesting potentially to move to an incubation state. So we should make a specific request to come in and present, but I don't really know what the right, the right distribution of labs presenting to the TOC is versus spending time on the incubation and graduated projects. Thanks Tracy. Hey Marcus. So my feeling about having the labs also talking to to see I mean it's great I mean if there is a lab, which has something nice and which can also be I mean go going further as an independent project right. Then it's fine right but I mean that we also have many labs which I mean just host yet another feature of a of a of a project right which is not clear if this will go in at some point into the actual project I mean like I like developing a fabric feature for instance doing that in a lab environment is, I mean, pretty common thing I saw. And, but I mean we're talking about the labs that every lab could I mean grow and incubate right as a standalone project but yeah. Then the structure of the labs currently offers to be. I mean, whatever it wants to be the lab right. Thanks Marcus. Hey David. I think maybe a good compromise but would be just to ask the labs, each of the labs once a year if they have anything they'd like to share with the TOC. I suspect most of them would not, but there might be a few that do and those probably be good ones to have agenda topics for. So not calling it like a report but just asking if they have anything they want to share with the TOC. Thanks David. So I mean on that front I just want to remind you that we have in the past extended an open invitation to labs to come to the attack. We had a TSE at the time, and it would be the talk now but to to basically present on what's going on in their lab which is also an opportunity for them to advertise their lab and maybe get more exposure. And unfortunately, this has been taken up by only very few labs. Some labs that are not aware of that there are new labs coming up all the time. Maybe that's something we should bring back up to the labs, but we have. Yeah, my point was more instead of an open invitation, ask actually asking them once a year, do you have anything to share you might we might get a little bit more uptake on that. No, you might be right. Awesome. I like that. Yeah. Marcus, are you. Yes. Yes, I was I mean, I just was just thinking that I mean, wouldn't be the lab stewards the right party to suggest which lab could basically I mean, talk to the to see directly I mean or the lab students could encourage us a pre select some labs and then approach them and say hey, you're making good progress here. Why don't you present to the to see the good opportunity to get more visibility something like that. I mean, I see this maybe as one of the ones abilities of the lab stewards. Thanks Marcus. So, I think I want to. I don't see anybody raising hands. I raise my hand virtually want to talk about two points that you brought up the first one was the project teams joining the, let's say, a lab project having a sub part of a bigger project which is already in hyper ledger, which has moved past the last phase. So, I think some of them, if we can ask the project team itself, if they are aware of any labs that they eventually want to integrate into in their either annual review or maybe the quarterly report we could ask them to talk about those aspects as well. And so, and for those projects who have not found their parent project where they want to merge into that could be an opportunity for project team and the labs to collaborate. Now to answer. I mean, for the other point that you brought up. I think it's okay to send in a general reminder to every project and be open for if they want to come and present to to see this this my thought on the second aspect. Yeah, thanks Aaron. Just want to confirm our our thinking around the sandbox specifically or the lab sorry. This seems like with CNCF, they have a pretty stringent criteria with sandbox, which has, I believe is the equivalent of our labs, and the process they apply to the sandbox, what it's it's even more stringent than what we do with incubation. But I think from the past couple comments, I think we're saying, we're not going to change what we do. We're going to continue to be very open, very lenient to labs. So they, you know, continue to have the space. And we're not going to apply any sort of process to those labs other than the suggestion to invite them to present to to see which I can identify with the teams, not to take on that take up that offer because I don't I don't know what would be the purpose of presenting other than using this forum to hopefully get more people to to know about them. But there are other ways right and it's not like TLC calls are widely participated by by the community. So I guess what I'm saying is, it's, it sounds like we're not changing our practice around labs. Yeah, can I suggest that the labs be a separate topic. It's kind of a distraction I think the main point here that we want to get to at least in the next three minutes is, if we want to do anything around incubation and graduated projects. In the next three minutes, but maybe we could try to summarize the discussion so far. Right, so Jim, I think let's bring this topic again in the next week's discussion and saw Ramakrishna raising high, but I don't know, do you want to say something. No, I was going to discuss lab but as they said, it's not enough time for it now, maybe another time. So basically we have an agenda for next week on discussions on labs, at least. Okay, so, so thank you everyone. I think the summary to summarize today's discussion. There are a few things that there is general consensus among the to see which I heard that we are open to improve and these things include annual review process in addition to the quarterly review that happens right and the to see advocate who will be with the project and have them set up the annual review process and then they will be presenting to the rest of the to see. And I think there is also general consensus among the. I forgot, I think it was like cadence related thing that you see agenda and the cadence. I don't see anybody discussing about the tag process or the due diligence, technical due diligence community, but it would be nice if you see here. Also discusses about those aspects and nor upcoming meetings. So with that Tracy back to you. All right, so thanks for taking us through this today everyone. So I think for next week, Rama task force for the project badging, I think it's the task force discussion. I think it will be good. And maybe we'll put together some initial draft of what it might look like for the project review for the annual project review and we can discuss that further. And then I don't know that we'll have time for labs next week but we'll see when we can get that one added to the agenda. So we'll just kind of keep that running. I think I will let you go for the week and we will talk again next week. All right, thank you. Goodbye.