 Welcome, folks, to the 17th of May Aries working group call. We have some good stuff under discussion today. We're going to touch lightly on the unqualified did peer did stuff. And then the larger amount of discussion today we anticipate being around the open wall foundation and the circumstances there. And so should be a good call. This is a hyper ledger call. So the antitrust policy and the code of conduct, both linked here are in effect. And if you have concerns, please reach out to Steven or I or any of the hyper ledger staff. And they will we will help you with that and solve the issue. You're welcome to add yourself to the attendees list. The link I'm putting again in the chat. And to the video allowed. Oh, that was not purpose. Yeah, I usually turn video recording off on hyper ledger calls because it makes the recording size huge. If you want, I will turn on video. It's okay. If there's good reason for it. So please add you actually today, if you wouldn't mind adding yourself the attendees list, we have some fairly important stuff under discussion and so logging in and adding yourself to the list will be very helpful and I should be in edit mode so that that's more updated. That will that will help us with logistics surrounding our conversation today so where it usually doesn't matter quite as much today is a little bit more important. Is there anyone here that is that would like to introduce themselves either new or or returning and would like to do so. Right. Why don't you actually since since not everyone knows who you are. Hi, I'm right. Jones. I work for the Linux foundation. I'm a community architect for hyper ledger. And that's, I usually run the talk meetings and stuff like that. And that's who I am and that's what I do. Thanks for being here right and anyone else like to awesome. Glad you're all here. I see many, many familiar names and I'm grateful for you being here. We have on the analysis here I've got to the dice Europe in June is here also this week or is it next week is is in Vegas is I'm blanking on the name of the conference who's got it for me. Any worse. It's, it's, I think it's first of June or something it's right over 30s of 31st of May and June 1st. All right. And at the same time in Helsinki is my data conference. What's with doubling up on all the conference states we just had this last week with with the open source conference and and yeah I see that's funny. Thank you. So what's going on. Someone added the hackathon here is there some context along there. The did hack XYZ. Yes, I added that. context. Yeah, so a bunch of people, including Brian Richter here in that organized starting from the last IAW a hackathon that's coming up. June, the first week of June. He reached out to me and Sam I sent you a note today which is why you haven't seen this yet probably to to answer questions from participants. So I'm happy to take it on that but I appreciate if someone, if there was a developer that could sort of be second level support. So if anyone would like to volunteer to help me with that, I would appreciate it. I'm a developer. Hello. So, I'm assuming the deep the details are on the link. Yeah, so that did the did hack is the background of it. I've asked infinite more detail about exactly what days we would be needed and went in which discord channel will monitor and stuff like that but basically, it's just a matter of time that that's something that I can chase internally for our team here to help you back up. Okay. So, I'll also I'll see if I can find someone as well but again I don't expect a lot be too much but just be able to answer a few questions and at a higher level than or a lower level than I could on, you know, the thing that I realized I should mention is we do have the in on creds workshop next week. I think most here probably don't need to be part of that because they know what an on creds is and how are having the in on credit workshop coming up. May 31. That's a training right is that. Yeah, that's a there'll be about three hours three and a half hours something like that of of of detail. And we've got a couple of plans for a couple of hands on exercises to get people used to creating a schema doing some, some requests and then some work on how to how to interface and on creds with other ledgers. So the ledger agnostic nature of an on credits. Excellent. It's pretty cool today I saw on this court. I don't know if I'm Patrick San Luis is here but he worked he's from ID labs here in Canada. He did a issuance of its credential format and w3c format into the various one wallet, which I thought was pretty cool Oh using chappy. Nice. Cool. That is cool. That might be worth a doubt here. Coming up. Yeah, that's what I think it. Yeah, I don't think we'll have time today nor is this sufficient warning for that sort of a thing but but no, I just saw that today but just thought it was pretty cool to announce that's very cool to see someone doing that. We chase that for a demo next week Steven to see if that's possible. Yeah, yeah, I'll see about that. Awesome. Cool. Excellent. Any other announcements. It's pretty interesting be time zone and, you know, having this am call from the west coast at 10 in the. That's not really an announcement, but I thought I'd share the what. What's going on. What is this time zone and it's not 7am and I'm not just waking up it's kind of cool. Oh, yeah. Sorry. That is cool. We should all just relocate farther east because that solves the early problem. Cool. Okay, any it's been so it's been two weeks last one was canceled for meeting or for conference attendee reasons. Is there any release status or work updates that folks want to share about areas related projects. I can give an update on the EFJ. It's been a while since I attended this call so I think still almost ready for the zero for zero release. And then we have a whole ledge agnostic anacrylate shared components included with that. And we've recently now started development on also supporting the other open eddy protocol so sci-fi to open eddy for VP. And also supporting JWT VCs. So, yeah, a lot of new stuff being added. Fantastic. That will that will help context for the discussion a little bit later so I appreciate you sharing that. Any other work updates. Awesome. Okay. So we have three topics that I organize it this way to leave the to leave the main discussion towards the end and so I'd really like to just lightly touch on on this stuff here. I don't see Alex here today. Alex had had volunteered and had done some work here on the did peer method three and here's some clarifications as described. Method three is a is a short shorter synonym for method to that that allows for parties that already know each other to revert back to a synonym for brevity in the messages. It makes them a little smaller because you're not including everything the entire time, but but is linkable, you know, hashes involved, for example, and so you can be sure that it's the same thing. So, I don't know that there's a lot of discussion here, but I want to call attention here for people to review the his proposed this is this is over on the on the peer did method spec. But but wanted to raise awareness here because of our interests. And so definitely take a look there if you to see if you have any concerns or how that or how that's proceeding over there, Steven. Can you go back to that showing is that all that's there. No, no, this was just the most recent changes. The last time I had viewed it, which is because Daniel has said, well, can you can you have some context about why and this is his added context about why let me let me look at a better diff. He has a lot of larger stuff in here. I'll take a look at it. Good. That was scary because it was like, that's not enough. Sorry for that. No, it's so this has been through a little bit of review but but that is important to get right. And so, please, please do review. And that likes in the agenda there. I'm anything more about the did peer stuff specifically method three I should call out since I have two agenda items. Your hands still up Steven is that an accident. Okay, so next is there is an implementation of a conversion between the historic unqualified dids. And and did peer method to baked into AFJ. And I had reached out to Timo, and he had mentioned that that a little bit of shoring up would needed to be done to make sure that this is this is canonical meaning stuff gets added the right way. But then what we need is a community is an RFC that describes this translation. So that we can, we can have, you know, authoritative documentation for it. And then we can consider that for something like you communicated community coordinated update to, to, to put the unqualified dids, the usage of unqualified dids in the ground. Once and for all, we should have done this a long time ago, better late than never. Timo, I was just about to ask you for wisdom. So, please. Yeah, so an issue with the approach we have an AFJ is that like, there is no kind of colonization scheme for did pair. And there. So that's the main issue like with everywhere to use did pair one, because like you create a hash of the document and to do that you need to have a consistent input because otherwise the hash will be different. I don't have that issue with method to per se, but like the services are in the end encoded as Jason, or like basically for encoded I think, which means there is room for differences, and that can depend on like the Jason serialization implementation, I think like across JavaScript implementations it will be very similar because they use the same Jason serialization deserialization algorithm but across languages that can and like Jason libraries that can differ so we will need to define like an actualization scheme, which can add a lot of complexity here. It can, but it's simpler than all of the other options is kind of what we've come to. And so the, and it may be given that this is not canonicalization of Jason generally speaking, but but but just the specific stuff we're talking about that that it may be worth concatenating the stream together in the right way to force the the order of the of the items in the Jason to be predictable. So that that works it also matters because did peer to allows multiple elements to exist in the in the did, and it doesn't specify what order they must be in. The other order of canonicalization needed here is to make sure that like that there's a regular way that we translate. Because this is coming just from those historic, you know did a Libini base dids. We, we don't have to solve this generally just for this very narrow purpose and, and then once this is done, and we make that translation like we'll never work with those again. I'm hoping that the limited nature of how we accomplish this can can make that happen. Yeah, no, no, I was making it more complex in my head. Yeah, that makes sense. And I admit that concatenating strings together to predictively canonicalize Jason is undesirable generally speaking, but we also have a very narrow application here so I wanted to call out that like the important thing is is that it's possible, given the narrow constraints of doing this that we that we're attempting to do. But it seemed like doing this, since there is already an implementation of this sort of a thing that starting from there rather than independently developing some way of doing this was much smarter. We have some wisdom in the implementation for example that that can be there, and this can serve, you know, perhaps with some updates as you're describing but this could serve as a is a is a code example of doing such. Stephen. So, really hacky. One thing we could do is define did peer three such that it can be either a shortened version of did peer to or an existing did. And that would allow conversion and qualification I don't know if we want to go to that but but we could actually do it because the thing we thought of was, oh we need some other did prefix. So we could build it into that but I don't know. Maybe that's too ugly. Certainly the the canonicalization problem, just to be clear. I'm not going to appear two and three like that very clear I think it's only qualified that we have today into something else. Stephen you skipped a little there but I think what you said was is we're not talking about the transition between did method and I'm out of two and I'm out of three we're just talking about historic indie did's to no I'll go to. Yes, yeah. Got a nod from Timo. Okay. So, the goal of doing this is that if we define this and and and have some some working code that does this, then we can consider this is the subject for a community coordinated update. The reason we have to do this is because both sides have to be prepared to compare the newly transitioned. Now I'll go to peer did and consider that when they're lining up and looking up who the message is from when they receive a message right and so that's that's why this is needed. And we can finally bury these things and never speak of them again. And so that will that will take us a huge step forward that is going to be necessary for for did come be to anyway. And so this is, but this is something that we can do before we put the stamp on a IP three, which which we're going to have to do so so calling this out and making this obvious I think would be great. It also brings along. It's a, it's a path for existing implementations that doesn't require, you know, killing and recreating everything, which I really like. And everything can transition using that in a really nice way. Anything further Timo that I missed. No, maybe just a question then. So in that case, like the did pair three doesn't make a lot of sense anymore right. Well, it still does. But my thought was is that did peer three is about efficiency. This translation translation from did peer to or from the legacy unqualified did to did peer to is is more about a compatibility issue. We're going to try and not combine those efforts. If there's a wiser path here and Steven the one you propose, maybe could be one in the fact that if we have a canonical as way of making that transition all the way to three, then we could. But, but in my head what I was thinking was is we would just worry about the move to NumAlgo to and then the adoption of NumAlgo three is a shortened thing could be handled as a separate effort and that way I was trying to minimize the implementation difficulty to leave behind the legacy did as soon as possible. Does that make sense Timo. Yeah, I will need to read in on like the did pair three like methods, because I would assume you can also just rotate from a did pair two to a did pair one if you think it's too long right. Yes, you could the point of did peer. The adoption of did peer one has been lower than than did peer two. And so one of the options there was to sort of figure that out. Another discussion about about method three is how we use like discover features to discover if you're if the other party in the relationship is capable of rotating to one of the of the did peer. The other did peer methods that's a little bit complicated because you can't just say well I support did peer you have to know I support did peer which which NumAlgo in order to be precise about it. And so we will likely need to expand that a little bit so that there we have a way within the community to discover which which types of did peer did maybe rotated to both one and and or three as the case maybe three is pretty simple. It's basically how you create a hashed version of all the information and to that can be that you can revert to as soon as you're sure the other party has received that full did peer like you get a message from them using the did. And then if you know that they're capable of it then you can send the next message with the much shorter form of did peer three. So, yes, but have a look and ask questions. I am perfectly open personally, if you Timo you see a smarter way to jump to an adaptation of NumAlgo three. And that would be faster than going through to I'm I'm totally cool with their tube the main goal here is to kill the legacy did dead in a way that is is the simplest path forward as possible that doesn't like lock us into something undesirable in the future, but but none of the discussions we've talked about none of the options we've talked about a really fall into that category. And because in did copy to be able to rotate between did methods, which means that if we make this step now, even though it's maybe not perfectly ideal that as we transition to did copy to you'll be able to move to whatever did method you like and maintain existing relationships. So, cool. Okay. And Timo you had indicated that you that you'll take a look at that and see if one of your team members can kind of be involved in that process is that is that still okay for you. Yep. Excellent. Thank you for that. Also, thank you for writing this this code stuff in the first place that that that gave us a leap forward. Okay. Any further conversation about did peer in any way before we jump into the open wall foundation conversation. Okay. We'll need to take some notes here. I don't have a super prepared presentation. I hit the wrong thing. I don't have a super prepared slides or anything about this. And so it'll be a little bit conversational. I just got home super late last night. And so I haven't had any time to do that yet, but I think it's important to have this discussion here. And to outline further discussions or other sorts of action items that that we want. And so let me let me just outline it briefly and the rest of you in the room that that have knowledge of and and opinions about things. I, please, please speak up, raise your hand on mute. And that way we can make sure that the conversation is as clear and as accurate as possible. So that so that we can have that have that so by way of introduction. The open wall foundation is a new Linux foundation project it was organized closer to the beginning of the year was, you know, the process of it was kind of pre announced and then it was a long period of figuring out sort of the basics of things. And then and then it's now up and running and officially exists. And their mission is to be involved. This is the mission is to be involved in the creation of common components for the creation of wallets. This immediately re raises the wallet versus agent terminology discussion. But, but I believe that their mission of what they mean by wallets encompasses our vision of agents in the sense that it'll it'll work all the way through. Helen has linked the, that's the foundational documents, right, Helen. That you linked a PDF. Yeah, that's the overview deck that they have on their site. And so their mission is as explicitly stated is a little larger than ours in the sense that that we have never really considered holding, for example, like a visa or a mastercard credential in areas while that's something we've directly contemplated. And, and so it sort of explicitly states that a lot further than we ever really have any areas community where we have been mostly focused on not just verifiable credentials but other peer to peer interactions that are a little bit more directed not necessarily reaching into those other other domains and other opportunities out there. So because of that overlap. There's, there's been lots of questions, both to the open law foundation and to us as areas about what we think of as the is the possibilities there, prior to the to the full establishment of of the open wall foundation, we did have a presentation. Steven, and I'll let you maybe it's Kareem or Alex I forget who I apologize. Helps me give a presentation to the open wall foundation to describe of the to describe what the areas project was what what it contained what our mission was etc, and that ended with someone asking the obvious question well like how does this relate to the future of the open wall foundation and I the answer that I had was that was a was a little bit of a non answer in the sense that I Sam Curran possessed no authority over the community. And so we'd have to discuss whatever it was as a community and and there hadn't really been any any proposals yet. There aren't any official proposals but they're when I was at the I see I had a sit down conversation with with two people directly that related. One was Torsten, who is working as a technical advisor, I think is the title to the open wall foundation. And he was curious about starting that conversation and then I also spoke with Daniel Goldshire. I'm not sure I'm pronouncing that correct Daniel Goldshire. Daniel Goldshire. Yes, shiter. Shiter. There's a D in there. Okay. Daniel Goldshire about about the possibility and then and then I've had a lot of conversations interior to in DCO about about what we think about about what's going on so I've had a lot of conversations this week about this particular topic with a variety of folks. And, and this is the point to sort of bring it up and have this conversation here in the areas community. And so that's the opportunity to expand that just slightly before I talk about the circumstances. There and what we can get into this and further discussion but the open wall foundation carries some nice branding along with it. One of the things that we have struggled with is people misunderstanding the scope of areas as a project. And, and everything else we've had folks that have been reluctant to get involved, doing very agent wallety things because they felt like well that's something different than areas even though it was like pretty much exactly the same. And, and so there's been some confusion and some some brand issues there. The, nothing is perfect of course. And so part of the discussion that we can have gets a little bit into, you know, what the ups and the downs of that are but I wanted to operate. I wanted to mention that in addition to, you know, just the sort of the logistical creating of the open wall foundation. And the overlapping scope that that there are some advantages being discussed along that line. Andre. Yeah, briefly on the marketing side of things so I totally agree to what you say. I think this having at least having this term wallet in its name is one of the biggest assets in this in this game already. And we are basically even so none of us I think are ultimately very, very ledger and blockchain oriented with with all that we do have the problem or, well, the legacy of being a hyper ledger project. So I think this is kind of for for people where where you only have 30 seconds a deal breaker if they are not into the lecture and web three kind of world and from the marketing side of things actually this is this is a big big win on the open wallet side. I have a couple of more things to say but maybe later. I think they'll fall in a little bit later. Thank you Andre for that. So let me talk about the circumstances. This is mostly the logistics of kind of what applies here and I'm going to, I'm going to rely on right to speak up and correct me should I speak an error or add any additional context necessary. Stephen and I, Stephen Kern and I have ended up being community leaders in this community. We've never really had an election here. But I think we have stepped back the slowest when it came term to time to ask for volunteers. We have at times at, you know, more explicitly asked for phone, you know, more folks that would like to be directly involved in the community leadership and haven't had a, we've definitely had people willing to sort of host a meeting in our absence but but but no one has been super interested in sort of stepping into one of our roles. I that is still open. I need to clarify in the sense that if you would like to get involved, we would love to have you involved. The effect of that is that Stephen and I directly have no authority. We cannot speak on behalf of this group. We are not elected to do so. It's not in any sort of a charter that lets us do that. We are willing coordinators of the community. But but I need to clarify that just to just to make that really obvious, which is why I can't speak on behalf of the areas community benefit. I can, I can guess, but there I have zero authority when it actually comes to that sort of a thing, which means that that anything we do as a community would benefit from us agreeing as a community to to any sorts of changes or adjustments that we want. That is true both of a potential move to the Open Wall Foundation but also any adjustments that we wish to make to make to the the areas community itself. If we want to adjust and a published, you know, mission statement or scope of the group, or should we want to do anything else of that nature, it requires us as a community to come together in that in that fashion. Now, there's probably someone's named a law about this but there's a lot of folks that are peripheral that don't speak up a lot but definitely have interest in the group and in everyone's opinion counts here. Sometimes when we have something like a vote, lots of people abstain. I want to highlight that if you choose to abstain from a vote because either option is fine. That's okay. But we really don't want you to abstain because you don't feel like your contributor here if you are here, or you're in the community, even if you're unable to attend the meetings directly, your vote work counts, and we care. And so please don't not participate because you feel like you haven't done something worthy of like being a participant in this organization, or, or there, or what's going on there, we definitely care. And there, and no one's going to look at you and say, well, wow, your vote doesn't count because of X that's that's not how this works. We've gotten for years have gotten along quite well as a community figuring this sort of stuff out. And, and I don't think any of that necessarily needs to change. There are procedures in the Charter for resolving stuck disputes that involve, you know, going higher than the areas project itself to hyper ledger. Again, that that is probably very rarely invoked at the hyper ledger perspective and we've certainly never done so. There are mechanisms to unstuck stuck things, unstick stuck things but that hasn't been something that we've really, we've really gone to so far. So, anyway, I wanted to highlight sort of the mechanics of what's really going on here and what our options are. And so what I intend to do with with our remaining time is is is hear from the voices of those in the community, and I think there are some things about what's going on so that we can have some context. I don't anticipate us putting out a formal declaration today and voting on it, but that sort of thing could happen in the future. Should we should we need to do so I'll also clarify that because not everyone with an interest in the community can can attend to this, this time slot. We would need to allow for time for us to circulate, you know, the vote and receive feedback from, from everyone in the community even those that, you know, like, listen to the calls because they're like asleep right now and things like that so. So there at no point I think will we actually have a vote on a call that then is immediately effective at the end of the call, because of that, because of that requirement. So, those are the logistics of how we get to make have this conversation and make this these these sorts of decisions any any corrections or clarifications necessary there. Sure. I wanted to talk a little bit about the mechanics. So if this occurred. If this vote was approved. There are a lot of things that I don't know the, the trademark for areas is with hyper ledger. It's hyper ledger areas. So I don't know if the project would need to be renamed. I don't know. I also. OWF is an unfunded project. So there would be no support for any funded activities which would be my time or any money spent on GitHub or any money spent at all. So that's the current status of that. And I am actually forbidden from working on OWF stuff by Daniela because it's unfunded and she doesn't want me spending time on unfunded stuff. So, even if there was a vote to move, I don't know what the mechanics of that would look like in terms of would it be a fork and then the old project will be retired and renamed. I don't know. Thanks for that context. Right. Daniela was mentioned Daniela is the executive director of the hyper ledger foundation. So, so she is or hyper ledger. I don't think foundations in the name now that I say it out loud. And so, Daniela is, is both aware of and and is a in, well, can help sort some of those issues out in particular, Steven, your hand. I was going to say, I think something like this would involve funding things like a superstar like rye contributing or being able to participate in the project and other things like that. I don't think that would be a prerequisite as well. So, well, I understand the current state is that I, I don't think that is necessarily the end state. They've got a published budget where they, they outline the types of staff that they are that they intend to involve. And I definitely know that I'm, I mean, it doesn't say rye, but but someone of that role that could that could make that work. So, oh, the other thing that to mention, I mentioned this briefly two weeks ago, and Andre linked to this in the chat, but there, the Linux foundation has organized the digital trust initiative, which is a collection of projects that relate to trust, including hyper ledger, they open all foundation, the diff and trust over IP are the organizations that that fall under that umbrella. And so that sort of exists as a thing. But there's not really like a separate staff there or a separate organization at this point. It's at this point, kind of a sort of a logical grouping or a that can be used for for marketing, et cetera, of the sort of the larger concept. Thank you, Andre for that. So, Steven jumped us a little bit into the challenges. And so I think we should continue on with that discussion. And we can talk about advantages here to this does not have to be just a downside conversation but a discussion of the ups and downs I think is, is kind of what is interesting here. And I in that vein would like to hear from folks with opinions, positive and negative about about this, this particular move. Hands up. Yeah, maybe, maybe one aspect that probably has not been discussed before. I mean, we're so full transparency here. I'm not one of the active members here in this group here you know that my team is working with you and on hyper ledger Indian areas kind of things so we're involved but I'm not a regular member of this of this call here. Nevertheless, we are founding member of trust of IP, as well as open wallet foundation so full disclosure years or that for everyone to be on the same page. I think open wallet foundation has a very interesting ambition level. So, they clearly want to provide working productively used code that has relevance in regulatory environments such as the EU digital identity wallet. I think, if you look at the people who are in the driver seat there and driving things across have this ambition level, not for bad reasons I think they they have very good reasons to have that, because they already are in liaison with the European Commission, and I think some of the stakeholders are basically in constant alignment on this stuff. So, I want to post this as an advantage for for us as as the areas community to basically potentially become part of this overall regulatory stream that's happening in the EU. You know that the EU architecture and reference framework did not include did come I think this is something that needs to be rectified at some point. And if we basically bring cool areas features into working wallets, even in this large scale pilots that are currently ongoing, that would be a clear win for the community and and demonstrate the viability of the stuff that everybody has already created. So maybe this kind of an intro statement for me and I'm really curious what you have to say. I'm very bullish about this bring this together because I think this, this is needed and overdue and now might be a good time to actually get it going. Thank you Andre. I'm going to strictly follow order of hands as presented by zoom. So Helen is next. Hey, thank you, Sam. I had a question, I don't know if anybody on this call can answer that but in terms of funding thus far from sponsors. It said in the, the, the overview for the project that deck there that I posted that they had 300 organizations that were interested in being part of wf. So it's not about, I think, 40 ish a little less, maybe 41 plus or minus currently current sponsors. I think they're the budget the draft budget that was roaming around with something like $7 million in order to do all the things that Andre just, you know, kind of described. Does anybody know what the status is of that budget and if we were to kind of dissolve the established connection we have with hyper ledger. Is there kind of a, you know, that the certainty of sponsorship that would keep the wf running, you know, beyond one or two or three years. I don't know that we can find that if anyone has those answers great but the other thing that we can do with our time here is, is enumerate the questions that we that we think are relevant to the furthering of this so so even if even if no one here has the answer, bringing up the question I think is a useful activity for us to do. Okay, perfect. Yeah, I mean I'm just from the perspective of somebody who's been involved with a community project that was that hyper ledger. Public health and hyper ledger public health went from a funded project to a non funded project. It was, it was a difficult transition to try to sort it out and get people in the right meetings again and you know keep that continuity of progress. I guess I would just want to know, again know about the funding know what their runway is, you know, if we can, you know, count on this I mean hyper ledger's been around for a minute now, but, you know, just just wanted to see that. I wanted to point out just the, again, hyper ledger being the established project that it is with the, the amount of following that it has it's in my view as a marketer I'm not a, I'm not a contributor a code contributor or anything like that. These, these projects live and die by participation by you guys by people showing up and working in, you know, and part of being part of the community. And right now I mean I'm counting 80,000 followers on Twitter for hyper ledger 43,000 on LinkedIn, another 80,000 get the newsletter each week 40 or 4100 on discord. There was a huge following a huge, you know, just audience to draw from I mean I think several hundreds showed up for the Aries work workshops that we that you know we were part of. And I would just want to make sure that we are still offering and reaching that level of people and that level of community, you know, if this mover to happen. Helen and by the way I'm taking notes here as best effort, which means that if you would like to correct things, either that you said or someone else said like please do like I'm just I'm just trying to capture some of our stuff. We will also have the transcript and the recording of course, but it's helpful to have some sort of high level wish things to organize our work. Tmos next. Yeah, I have a few points. I think. First of all I think yeah what we got like from high pledge and the support that we've had I think that is really great and I'm not sure if that is something we can get with open wallet foundation, but that's mainly because I'm not familiar with how open wallet works and all the processes behind it. I do think that there is an opportunity here. And there's a few things I think in. And I think one is that the average standard and the code being co located and managed by the same organization I think, or like under the same get up or, or that I think has proven to be sometimes difficult because people think areas is just what the implementations and there's sometimes too much overlap like what are the implementations and what are the standards and that has, I think, limited its adoption outside of the code that is being developed under hyperledger, while standards are also meant to be implemented by anyone that wants it. I think for us also is like with, for example, our same JavaScript is that we've been like we're working on digital decentralized self sovereign however we call it identity, which we started out by mainly focusing on our eyes but there's a lot of initiatives going on like there's multiple standards multiple protocols multiple technologies to support and we've now been starting to build like open ID stuff we may want to add as well credentials, whatever. So, for, like, the code that we're now developing I think goes beyond just arise, and it's called arise and I'm not sure if, like that is the best marketing for the framework in the end because it may let you think oh this is an errors project well in the end it's an agent implementation like as like did come agent or whatever agent. So, I think that's my main two points I really see an opportunity here I'm just not sure if like is is open wallet, the place to go or what should happen. I add just a little bit of commentary, the, because did calm, I don't think it's fully answers to be clear Timo but because did come was sort of taken up over in the decentralized identity foundation that already has started a move of some of the things that areas implements outside of the areas project directly and so one of the possibilities, perhaps alongside perhaps independent of an open wall foundation move is to is to shift the standards development like protocol design etc out of Aries over to the existing did come working group or the user group over there, which does have open requirements there's no payment required for that particular group. The IPR concerns are different than a spec itself and so that helps. But the that group already exists so that would be that could be a possibility either alongside a code move to WF or or independently, I will mention that WF has explicitly stated that they do not want to create standards, implement standards so if if there was to be a move, then the the basically the what lives in RFC is both as conceptual and and technical this, you know, designs of things would would not find a home there. And, and would need a place to live, they could live are historically speaking inside of inside of hyper ledger, but if there's to be active work moving forward on those then someplace like that that organization to different be useful. The thing is more of a question is that Timo you mentioned that you were, you know, working on specs designed elsewhere, and the question of beyond Aries. We, it's been a long time since we've had a commerce conversation about the scope of Aries. And so one of the things that that may merit some discussion is what is the scope of Aries, and what is the perception of the scope of Aries, because those two things are different, even if they're, even if they're like one is correct the perception might still be a particular problem, and there might be activities to, to correct that or to figure it out, even with a transition or without a transition so there's, there's definitely things there to discuss. Yeah, I think you, you basically already said my question but that was my question, even, especially if we're going to move protocol design and creation out of Aries to then what, what is Aries, like that is a, is it then just a bunch of frameworks that do identity related stuff or what is what is left. An inner profile could be there's so that's a good question and let me let me talk about this from a historical perspective. I've better on a minute. The, the, the Aries has become three things. There is a collection of RFCs that can contain design stuff. There's code that matches those RFCs and there is. And then we also have areas in our profiles that you know where we've got to minted and we're talking about a third. And so there's there's those three things that are kind of areas right and so the reasons of having the, the code co located with the design. At the time we were trying to figure a lot of the stuff out early early in the Aries world, there wasn't a place to do this other conversation we there wasn't an obvious home for that conversation in the diff. The trust of our P didn't exist open wall foundation of course didn't exist. And so we ended up having we identified problems to solve and given the lack of any place else to do them. And we solved them within Aries. Not just because that's historically true doesn't mean at all that it should be true moving forward, but that's kind of why it ended up where it was and, and as things became interesting in other communities like did come be to for example, that was extracted as a conversation and moved outside to to another another discussion outside of Aries. And of course we are now have efforts to move to an adopt did come be to, as an example of implementing, you know, specs credit elsewhere. And so, and so the question is, what is Aries is certainly one that we're going to need to more precisely and loudly answer should this this move to open wallet foundation not be reached directly. That's something that we definitely need to, to focus on that we have kind of ignored for a while. We mostly just been sort of heads down building stuff which is great but but the project itself, you know could probably use a little bit of sort of top level attention from that perspective, which which could really help. With that commentary, Steve, your hands up. Yeah, thank you. This is an interesting proposal takes takes me a little by surprise given what I know about open wallet foundation. I'm curious about what the genesis of this proposal is what I understand is Aries develop standards and writes code and open wallet foundation doesn't want to write standards but wants to implement them. It seems like open wallet, incorporating Aries code and furthering that is of general interest, but it. I'm curious what what the benefit is to Aries being hosted through a wallet development organization. It just seems like an interesting. Are we playing on their popularity right now, or what what's the motivation, really for doing this and dividing up Aries spec and code into different organizations as opposed to where it is right now. Most of what we've heard so far. And I'm curious for opinions would be good here. Most of the opinions that I've heard so far are around the maybe the unfortunate association with ledgers being in hyper ledger and the and the potential for the name of open wallet foundation to sort of draw a little more clarity around around what kind of we do this again gets a little bit into the agent versus wallet discussion and exactly what is what, but from a certain perspective if you were in my view if you're going to hold up hyper ledger foundation and ask which of them works on like, you know, agents or wallets or whatever you're probably going to land on open wall foundation, even if neither one of them is a perfect match and so I think that's one of sort of the obvious things there. But opinions. So, yeah, just to follow on on that one, just as a real practical matter. We, we kind of started with sovereign and hyper ledger than dip and trust over IP and now open wallet foundation it seems like whenever there's a new problem to solve. We're going to stand up a new organization. And then that requires even small businesses to pay somewhere between $5 and $50,000 a year to participate and to be a member of that organization. And so, wanting to participate in the full ecosystem. Whether or not you support ledgers, but all the way from wallets standards to verifiable credential standards to communication standards kind of makes it so that organizations wanting to participate in the full spectrum. Companies now, even small companies that have to join all of these organizations with all sorts of fees. And so, it seems interesting to me that when there's a problem to solve the answer is a new foundation, as opposed to a retooling or addition to the ones that we currently have. And so, from that perspective, I think we're spreading ourselves as a SSI DI industry, fairly broad across different organizations. And I think what we're going to end up having is people that want to participate are going to now have to financially pick and choose what they participate in and I'm, I'm wondering if there's a way to bring everything more cohesively as opposed to segmenting things across different foundations. Andre. Yeah, I totally agree. I think that this is this is now more the opportunity to bring balance to the force right. I think we could basically now allocate all this code creation activities around wallets and agents. Replace all the governance and and kind of standards work somewhere else so that we concentrate on this and and what I what I think is obviously this is always stakeholder game right so there's some people who come from from more the OpenID world having having created a lobby around OWF and I think they they will they will have a keen interest to make it work. And I think the story will get much better on on all ends. If we team up and join forces and I have the clear feeling that we have have now achieved a state where where more caliber collaboration is in fact happening and people start running even though coming from different domains in the same direction. I never had this feeling before I had I think I had it as the strongest first at EIC where we saw all the momentum with all the identity access management established companies now trying to be decentralized from one second to the next So I think this is now happening and if we as as the originators of this whole decentralized identity movement want to have our our stake and and value in the game. I think teaming up now is a cool thing for all of us to do. Okay, so logistically speaking we're at the end of the hour. There's I think there's two ways we can proceed forward with this conversation. We're likely all scheduled past it today and so continuing is not ideal, but clearly this is something we need more discussion on. One of the things that we could do is carry it forward to next week and and try to shove other matters aside so that we have more of the call to talk about it. The other thing that we could do is schedule a special topic call scheduling a new call is always a super fun challenge, but we could allocate something more along the lines of two hours, which could be beneficial for for such a complex topic. Is there any obvious preference in the group on how we should proceed to continue the conversation. Given an obvious preference. Let's continue this to next week what and then what we'll try to do is really rip through the beginning stuff as fast as we can so that we can rejoin the conversation and dedicate more time to it. In the meantime, what I think we should do is create probably a special wiki page on this that we can update sort of session to session that I will try to organize from our notes here and then I will attempt to circulate before next Wednesday. This sort of a thing. I also think that we could leverage some of the discussion features inside of inside of the areas RFCs repository to address a handful of these topics. And I will attempt to circulate those as well so that we can end up with more conversations that are happening and that way we can spend our meeting times more summarizing rather than calling them directly. So I will attempt to facilitate that this that this week. So that we can round out the variety of conversations that we need and gather input from from everyone on the various aspects there. And so I grateful for coming I wish we just instantly had another hour that we could spend on this, but but I appreciate everyone coming. So I would encourage the discord areas channel for any sort of links or other things that we could do to be involved prior to next week, and then we will spend the majority of next week talking about this issue as well, hopefully having advanced some in the meantime. So thank you all for coming. I know there's opinions and things brought up that we didn't hear yet. And I appreciate your patience in that. And we will see you all next week. Thank you. Thank you.