 Hi, I did a little trace or any. Welcome everyone to the March 3rd TSC meeting. You are all aware. We've been on this call before, but I must say it. I must abide by the antitrust policy notice, which is currently displayed on the screen. As well as our code of conduct, which is linked in the agenda. So with that, we have two announcements. The first announcement will actually both of these announcements. You've seen before the first one is the Dev Weekly developer newsletter goes out each Friday. If you have something you want included, please leave a comment on the wiki page that is linked in the agenda. And the second one is around the mentorship program. The date is March 9th. So we're six days away from that date for you to submit your project proposal. If you haven't done it for less than a week, if you haven't done it already, please submit your project proposal. The link here that's provided. Again, there's some guidelines as well as a timeline. That's also linked in the agenda. Are there any other announcements that anybody would like to make? Yes. Thanks, Tracy. A topic related to Hyperledger mentorship program. As most of you are aware, Hyperledger Challenge had deadlines for submission. It's a community-run event which had deadlines for submissions this month, March 1st. However, we have extended it to March 15. Now, we had a, I guess Nancy had a call earlier with Karen, where it is possible for some of those submissions also be considered into mentorship program. They find mentors for their submissions, right? So we are trying our best to analyze which of those submissions are looking for mentors and then encourage them to also submit to the mentorship program. But if you have any, if you know any of those submissions, it's all available already on the wiki page. If you can also go through them and suggest or be mentors for some of them. Please feel free to let us know and we can connect you with the participants. That way we can have more mentorship submissions. If you feel some of those projects are valued. Thank you. Any other announcements that anybody would like to make? Okay. So with no other announcements, the next thing that we have on our agenda are the quarterly reports. So I was just looking at them. It looks like the majority of them. Only have about four or five sorts of reviews done. So please take the time to review that. I did see that we have some questions out to the cello maintainers on the cello report. The trends after report doesn't currently have any questions. So the grid report. We reported specifically the, the maintainers reported that their documentation is hard to find off the hyper ledger site. So Benjamin, I see you're on the call that has been tagged as something that you should be aware of as you are working on making some updates to the site. To make that an easier thing for us to accomplish. And then the last thing that we have, if I look at the devil one, it looks like Dan, oh, your question was responded to and the. The project report updated. So are there any questions or anything else that we should make sure we're reaching out to the. To the maintainers of these different reports about anything. One question I often have especially associated with some of these projects that are very closely associated with fabric is, are they keeping up with core fabric? I know that we had some trouble with that when we had. We had some projects in the past and I don't know that we have a really good way as the TSC as the whole to keep track of that. So, you know, all I can really do is trust that the fabric maintainers on the technical steering committee are, are they willing to put in their two cents when, when something like that becomes an issue. Yeah, definitely Nathan. I. I think, you know, unless we go out and take a look at where the code is and see kind of release notes and things like that, it is definitely hard for us as TSC members to see like what the. The compatibility matrix it is, if you will. You know, I know some of the. Documentation like I know for sure Bevel has a. A compatibility matrix specifically within their documentation that says which of the different versions of each of the different platforms that they support is. I think it would be a good thing if we did similar sorts of things for these dependent projects, if you will. Or these projects that work with other projects. However you want to say that. Maybe it's a, maybe Nathan is worth adding just a comment to the cello project report to that effect. And I'm also also hesitant because I don't know, I don't know that we want to create an issue that isn't an issue. That's just kind of a sense from the maintainers that. We have enough help that we're keeping up. Yep. Anybody from who supports fabric as a main thing or who has some knowledge there and know about cello and whether or not it. Is up to up to speed with like at least the latest long term support. Yeah, so. So if we are following the sale of quite long time, even last year, but I think it still is not in condition to, not in kind of mature level. Someone can use in the kind of production grade implementation even, even is hardly to even, I think there are two, two, three maintenance only. And someone from IBM and another from some kind of mentee for that project. I think, I think he is not in a good state to use in some kind of production level implementation. And he's only support fabric as of now. And do you know what version of fabric? Sorry. Do you know which version of fabric it supports at this point? The last time I tried it was 1.4. And even that is very hard to even run. So Nathan, maybe sounds like there, there is a need to, to ask the question anyway. You know, maybe it's a particular case where, you know, they could add an internship project for a proposal. To add support for the latest version or, you know, David Boswell, I don't know if there's something that we need to do as far as. I don't know if there's a distribution campaign for cello to see if there's other people who would like to get involved with cello. I do know that there is interest in whether or not cello supports other platforms besides fabric as well. Specifically, I think Daniel asked a question and I know I saw a question asked within the discord channel on what versions or what platforms that's something that we would want to reach out to them on. Yeah, go ahead, David. I did. I was actually at a project called there recently and talked to them about that and I posted to the list. It's certainly something we can do if there's interest on their end. Any other comments or questions on the quarterly reports? I don't really exactly know if cello has already planned on supporting new version of fabric release, but I keep a check on new PRs that are raised across. So it looks like cello has some PRs that are related to life cycle chain code, which are part of the like two dot two release the LTS version release. So they might have started work on that. I just wanted to add that comment for now. Okay. That's good. Good news. Good information. Any other comments this morning on the project reports? All right, like I said, it's important for us to be reviewing these, let the projects know that we are interested in what they're doing. You know, we, we claim these reports are important. So if we're not reviewing them as the TSE, then we're sending the wrong message. So I wrote. Sorry to interrupt. I guess I wanted to paste a message on TSE channel then realize that previous question was not answered. So this is regarding a comment that I added in the transact report. So I guess the statement we, I need some more clarification on the statement. Maybe if Peter can help or Grace can help. Yeah. So I think, I think the question that you had was around. Whether or not we're asking the right question here, when it comes to the inclusive language statement. We're currently asking. I forget what we're asking, but deep does your, I think it does your documentation include an inclusive language statement. And the. The way in which Andrea answered it is the way in which I think it was intended. Which is that there's not currently anything in their documentation to reflect any sort of. This is what we should be doing as far as inclusive language. And I think when you had the question of, is that the question that we want to ask. So Peter grace. From our. Vote. We asked for specifically. We did approve the statement as it exists in the current project. Template project report template. Is, is the idea behind this question. Have you added something to your documentation or is it more? Are you following the inclusive language statement. In your documentation. I'm just pulling up the link right now and just refresh myself from being honest. Peter, I don't know if you have thought so before while I pulled up. So, I guess the question is what we, what we added specifically was, have you added an inclusive language statement to your project's documentation and or wiki pages. And I'll link to an example, inclusive language statement, which is basically this text that's below here. As a yes, no question within the project template. And I think we're going to asking if that's the question that we really desired or whether we desired to ask. Whether our documentation. Follows the inclusive language statement. I think the sentiment was falling inclusive language, like up above we have kind of. Like, I think under recommendation, it's like, here's an example, or here's what you can use. If you don't already have it, I think the. If the projects have. An inclusive language statement of their own. And they, I'm not opposed to them using what they already have or, you know, following those guidelines and just linking out to that, but, but open to others thoughts. Yeah. So, so then you were more. Just make sure that the documentation and the wiki has this statement and it inclusive language statement, maybe this one, or their own within their documentation, not, are you following inclusive language within your documentation? Yeah, exactly. Yeah. That was fine. That's what I had expected. Okay. So. Okay. Thanks Peter. I run, I think that then the question that is included in the template is as expected. Stacey. So the thing that made me worried is that I saw an answer as no. So I was like, okay, probably the statement needs correction. Yeah. So I think they haven't yet included any sort of inclusive language statement in their documentation or wiki pages. And since this was the first report since this was passed, I would assume that most of our projects are probably in the same boat. Where they don't have an inclusive language statement unless they have specifically thought about that in the past. So my expectation is that it's probably going to be no for a point, a few of them until the point at which, you know, another quarter or so goes by and we start to see them get, say yes. Thanks. And just to expand on the example part, I think the intention with the example was to help those, like myself, who are a little more lazy. For example, my plan for practice is just the copy paste example. And then it's a quick and easy so that the proposal does not just give you recommendations, but it also helps you. So that was meant as a helpful guardrail, not something strictly prescribed. Okay. Any other questions then on the project reports? Hydroasis. Yes. Sorry. Just to back up on the high religion websites that you mentioned. What does that involve exactly? Yeah. So in the grid project report, they mentioned that their documentation, which I think is what is it grid that hyper ledger. Org slash docs. If I'm not mistaken is hard to, hard to locate. Is this the grid one? This is transact. Oh yes. I know which tasks it's related to now. I've got it. Yeah. So I think, I think really it's a, how do we, this question right here. Grid documentation website is difficult to find. Starting from hyper ledger.org. So I think it's really just a matter of on the grid page, linking to this particular page. I know we have a bunch of other links out there, like linking to the source code and things like that. But I think what they're asking for is for this to be. A link as well. Okay. Yeah, no problem. All right. Any other questions on the project reports? So if there's no other questions there, we do have a couple of topics that I've added for discussion purposes to this week's TSE call. The first one is this hyper ledger project families. Documents that. Heart have put together probably a while ago. And I updated it this week to, to talk about kind of. What this is and to give some examples of, of maybe project families at the end. But really, you know, we've talked about this in the past in the TSE calls around how do we make it easier for people who are brand new to hyper ledger to navigate hyper ledger. And the different projects that exist within there. And so, you know, what was it three, four months ago we went through a process, a task force process where we updated the landscape. And we basically have separated the projects into active. I'm sorry, graduated projects and incubated projects. And then we've also got them split into. Like distributed ledgers and tools and. Libraries and. You know, industry specific, I think are the, the categories that we have. So the idea here is to talk about project families. So we've got basically a main sort of project, if you will. And then a set of other projects that. That support them. And the, the idea is, you know, can we, can we move it forward and, you know, I'm thinking about that. I'm thinking about different projects, which it's what we had 18. You know, is there an easier way for us to narrow that down for people coming in to say, you know, what I've, I've heard about fabric, I want to use fabric. What are all of the things that are related to fabric that might help me in my, my journey of. Using fabric and deploying fabric and. Monitoring fabric and that sort of thing. in kind of the Ethereum space, what are the tools and other projects that will help me in using FASU and so on and so forth? So, I think the question here is to the TSE, do we like this idea? Are there suggestive project families that exist in this document? Something that makes sense? Is there other sorts of concerns that we want to bring up and think through as we look at this particular proposal? So, I'm gonna stop talking and see if anybody has any initial comments on the proposal itself. Kamlesh? So, yeah, hi Tasek. So, I think who raised this proposal because a similar thought I have in mind because when lots of people interact with me also personally as a community member, so they have lots of confusion about the Hyperlegia projects because like suppose we talk about the Ethereum, so there is one Ethereum and maybe I'll go into one, I'll go into it, but in Hyperlegia there's many things, Fabric, Iroha, Buru, Besu, Indi and the lots of libraries. So, still it's very confusing people like if they talk about the Hyperlegia so mostly people interpret it as fabric and they don't know about the other projects. So, I think dividing in this project families, I think it could be a good idea and but better marketing and proper marketing is needed to because there are lots of, like suppose R3 quota is R3 quota, there is nothing more than that, but in Hyperlegia there's lots of things. So, how we can make it as a better kind of understanding for the community people who are using the projects and there are better understanding about what is Hyperlegia, the fabric and other kind of projects. Yeah, definitely agree. I think that's the intent of this particular proposal is to see what we can do to make it easier for people coming in. So, Jim. Thanks, Tracy. I haven't read the full document so I can normally base my comments on what was shown earlier with the four different categories, DLTs and tools and libraries and forgot what the last one was. Domain specific. I think it's one, it's good way, but it's one way. I think we need to think about other dimensions. For example, India is very well known in self-solving identity, but people may not necessarily know Aries is also indispensable if you wanna do interaction-based proof of certificates and if you wanna do zero knowledge as part of that you need Ursa. How do we tell them these three are very useful if you're doing self-solving identities or decentralized identities? Another example is Firefly belongs to tools. That's fine, but then it's very different from everything else in tools in that it's actually part of a programming model whereas everything else is more infrastructure. So I just feel like there are other dimensions that we should think about beyond this current way of characterizing them. Yeah, right. If you wouldn't mind just scrolling to the end of this document. I did throw out some suggested project families. Again, it's a suggestion, not necessarily what we have to do, but trying to think about what are these? It's pretty much all the way to the bottom, right? There we go, right there. So yeah, some initial set of suggested project families. You can see right here the Hyperledger Indie product family would consist of Indie Aries, Bevel and Ursa and Bevel because Bevel can deploy Indie networks if you're interested, but obviously Indie Aries, Ursa. So yeah, I agree, right? It's what are the right dimensions? I think is the question of how do we get people to take a look at where they start and how they proceed through the journey. All right, Mavi? Well, I have to thank you for this because this from an educational perspective is more in line with how learners process information. So again, I've always taught the identity solution together and it just makes sense how it flows. So this document is invaluable for the education and the learning materials group. All right, thanks, Mavi. Hart? Hey, so thanks everybody. First, I want to emphasize that this is sort of a very rough proposal. So feel free to like, you know, change it or, you know, propose suggestions. The overall goal though is that, you know, when people visit the webpage, when they think about Hyperledger, we're sort of overloading them with too much stuff and we need to find a way to reduce that. And this seems like it might be a good way and we can sort of, you know, we can tie some other things in there like, you know, community engagement and other stuff so that we incentivize these families to, you know, have strong communities. And Jim, I don't think, you know, you brought up the categories and this is sort of orthogonal to the categories. This is going to be something very different from the old diagrams that we're not going to categorize things necessarily by what they do, but what are their relationships with other projects? Yeah, thanks Hart. I think that's kind of important looking at, you know, kind of this listing, if you will. You know, maybe you might not think Cactus, Caliper, Firefly, when you think Basu, right? But these are tools that will work specifically with Basu. So if you're interested in interoperability with Basu, then Cactus is your, you know, project that you would look at, Caliper for performance and then Firefly for other sorts of interoperability, if you will. So when I put this together, I started kind of with the DLT projects and that's kind of why you see it the way it is. And then the other piece that I looked at this at the bottom is there's also these other projects that we have that actually work with projects that are both in Hyperledger and projects that are outside of Hyperledger. And maybe they deserve kind of their own billing, if you will, when it comes to marketing. So, you know, like Hart said, I think this is a suggestion. This isn't meant to be like, yes, this is final and this is how we're gonna do it. This isn't meant to start the discussion. Arun? Thanks, Tracy. My opinion on this is probably we should still keep the categorization that we have currently. However, I like this idea, right? So from this idea, I see some of these projects are listed only on fabric, for instance. Hyperledger could actually fall into Basu as well. I know it could potentially, I know it's listed under two of them. So we are probably suggesting, here is the compatibility across these different projects that are within Hyperledger. And these are possibly the tool set or list of frameworks that you will use together to build your text stack for solving certain problem statements. So I like the idea and I would suggest, I mean, my opinion again, we should compliment this alongside what we already have than replacing what we have through the categorization that we already have done. So over here, my priorities would be to group them together and probably say, if your problem statement itself is an identity, here are the projects that you can generally use together and here is how they all fit in the text stack and start using it. If you're looking into solving generic DLT based or problem statements, then here are the projects that you can potentially use. And here is the compatibility of different projects availability within this group. Thanks. Yeah, thanks, Ram. And yeah, this is not intended to be static if Cello decides at some point in the future, they're going to support, you know, Fesu or Roja or even Indy, right? Satyuth, right? There's nothing that says we can't add them to that list. So intended to be changing as the projects change. Peter? I just wanted to plus on this idea. I think it's great because it will save me from having to do some explaining with the current greenhouse picture there. I always have to go sort of say that taxes is in the tool category, but it can also be in another category. You're not 100% sure which one is. Instead, I can just say that this is a tool that's adjacent to these ledgers right now and then people can sort of draw the conclusions from there. And on the website, I think it helps because most people, I imagine, come in saying to themselves, well, I need a ledger and I heard of hyper ledger. So now I will go and see what that is about. And then based on that, they will start with the DRTs. That will be probably their first correction point and then as they dig down, then they will discover these other projects such as the one that I'm the maintainer of. So I think it's great. Hi, I'm Ash. So I think idea is good, but I think we should also take a feedback from the community, not just the DRTs to decide whether this is the right thing. Like suppose, for example, with the hyper ledger, we went to the foundation. The thing for, because how community want to see the project should be listed and their awareness, maybe there could be some surveyed feedback created and we give the all the understanding about the project. And then maybe some kind of what kind of project families should be there and community will decide whether this is the right approach, not just the DRTs only. Yeah, come west well. Obviously the community is welcome to join these calls and provide their inputs. I'm not sure obviously how we get communities to join this call because I think it's important for them to join and have this discussion with us. I agree. This should be like, hey, we're the TSE and we're just gonna lay down the law. I want other people to be involved in these discussions. So anything that you can do to point other folks in the community to this document, to add their thoughts, I think is gonna make this a better thing, right? Yeah, I mean like suppose creating some kind of survey form and we post from the high place as a media and get feedback from the committee from a few weeks. And then TSE will decide what the majority of things about dividing the projects and attendees. Yeah, surveys are hard because we don't tend to get the response that we want. But yeah, I agree that we need to get more eyes on us and more thoughts on this. Angela? Yeah, I would say it's beautiful. I like a lot that we can also print. I was just playing a little bit. You can print this poster. I will print some of them and put in IBM. Very nice, I must admit. If I can suggest, because it looks like a good place for visibility as well. And I would give a chance also to the Hyperledger Labs project to appear there. For instance, there are a few gems in the Hyperledger Labs that don't receive enough publicity like this blockchain agnostic state channel project, Perun. I don't know what's the right pronunciation. It's just such a great project, but unfortunately it's not receiving enough publicity. But great, I like it a lot. All right, thanks, Angela. David? Yeah, just to plus one, a couple of things have been said. I absolutely agree about what was just said about the labs. I think this could be a really nice way to associate labs with the different project families when they do apply. So yeah, absolutely to that. And also to what Arun said, I do see this as a compliment to the landscape and not a replacement for it. Just to share, I went to most of those greenhouse task force calls. So just to share my memory of those and if other people run those task force calls, you can remind me, but the landscape was explicitly not intended to be an onboarding tool. I remember that discussion came up a number of times. I think the goal of the landscape was somewhat different from what we're talking about now. And I believe that one of the recommendations from the greenhouse task force when they closed down was that we should focus some time and effort on onboarding materials, which I think this is exactly it, right? So I think this is great and this is complementary. The landscape has a role, but it's not for onboarding new people. I think something like this that provides information in a more digestible way is that. And so I do see these as complementary and I think this is a task that the greenhouse task force encouraged us to take on. So it's great to see us doing it. Yep, thanks David. So I'll just add some, I don't know, I'll be the devil's advocate if you will, see that the labs thing. So when we initially proposed labs as a place where the community could come together and do some experimentation and bring their thoughts about what they might do to improve the different hyperledger projects, it was intended to be low cost, low cost for the people who wanted to bring their labs and start contributing and collaborating in an environment that was under hyperledger, low cost for the staff as far as marketing and those sorts of things. So, and then the other piece of this obviously is the more data we throw at people, the harder it's going to be for them to figure things out. So playing devil's advocate when it comes to labs, I agree there's great stuff out there. But also do we want to do that is a question that we should think about and think through how that impacts the discoverability of things. When you start having to explain more, like this is a lab and it's not a project and this is how labs differ than projects, it will potentially cause some additional sorts of strain when you're brand new coming in. So I just want to make sure that we think through that before we throw labs into this mix as well. So yeah, a couple of things. I think one of the main points of this is we want sort of like three to five sort of main things that we can put, we can highlight on a web page just for the lack of information overload. And if one of the labs is one of the three to five most exciting things that we have going on in hyperledger, we probably aren't doing something right. That being said, Angelo, I'm very excited by Perun and some of the other labs as well and I have a halfway written up email to you about in particular Perun and other stuff. So I will mail you to follow up on that. All right, thanks Hart. Okay, so I think from here, one of the things that I'd like to have the TC do is to open the documents, provide your thoughts and your feedback and let's continue this conversation kind of in an offline asynchronous mode. But before we get there, Rai, I'm not going to cut you off and cut your hand up and down. So what's on your mind? I was trying to do the thumbs up emoji. I clicked that. So yeah, it's cool. Sorry. No, no worries. Yeah, so this link is obviously in the agenda. Please take the time to add your thoughts and make this better. All right, we have one other item on the agenda and that is the project health collection issue. Jim, I did notice that you put kind of an update in here about the sorts of things that you've discovered so far in the issue. Rai, if you wouldn't mind scrolling down a bit just to the update list 3-3 right over here. So yeah, Jim, you've put this together as kind of an offline mode. But I think that the next question is, what's next? Do we create a task force? Where do we go from here? So Jim, if you wouldn't mind just walking us through kind of where things are at and what the next steps should be. Yeah, absolutely. Thanks, Tracy. So thanks everyone who has contributed your thoughts in the last couple of weeks on this topic. I think this is a very important topic as we were struggling earlier to understand, for example, some of the project's status. I think defining a standard list of dimensions that we all agree on, that would define objectively the health of a project is very important, I think is pre-off. And we need to do the grunt work of identifying those. And I see those being done in two steps. One is we need to agree on the high level bullet list of what are the things we care about. And that's in the first, so you can see this list as three levels. The first two levels captures sort of the conceptual dimensions we care about. And then the last level are types of data that can be used to support that particular attribute or dimension. So what we've got so far is at the high level we have two categories. One is the community. How well is the community coming together behind the project? How live is it? And what are the chances that this community will continue to grow and survive? And the other high level category is code. Is this community producing a useful code that are being adopted in real world projects? And then under community, I think this is mainly summarizing the things that's already been discussed and talked about by Tracy, David, Hart, and others. And that's these five categories, growth, diversity, retention of contributors, maturity and responsiveness. And then if you look at the supplements under each of those are the types of data that should be collected to support them. And then under code, so far we've applied two. One is usefulness, another is production readiness. So this is still pretty dynamic and still ongoing. I'd like to propose that we continue doing this for at least another week or two depending on how much more content and progress we can make asynchronously before we organize a task force. So if we can get to agree on a list of high level conceptual dimensions, first then we can organize a task force behind how to get ideas so we can collect the right data to objectively reflect on those dimensions. So that's the current status of where this is. We'd love to hear thoughts and suggestions from anybody. Tracy, did you have anything else to add? So Jim, I think this is making some good progress. I think there's definitely some specific things so far that we can look at. One thing that I think we should consider as we take this to kind of task force or implementation however you wanna look at it is how do we get the LFX Insights team involved in this so that this isn't just a thing that can be used for us but for others as well. So that we're not recreating what's already out there. I think that's where my head's at right now. I also, just because it was there and Ry was scrolling through it, there are some things specifically in the metrics that might be hard to come to. Specifically, I saw one that was around the involvement in design discussion from Discord. I think it would be hard to separate out what's a design discussion versus what's a question from just from the perspective of do we have to run some sort of language analytics on this to figure out is this a design discussion focus or is this something that somebody came into the state of contributors channel and asked a question and it wasn't really related to any sort of design sort of question, right? So Ry, I did see you come off mute. I don't know if you had a comment there. Yeah, I did actually want to talk this time. I would absolutely like plus one that my preferred end of this project would be to get the LFX team to build this dashboard because I don't think this is useful for Hyperlitter. I think this is useful for all of the Linux foundation projects. And I know that some of this exists in LFX and it's really hard to find. So if we can feed these in to LFX and get this built for us or assist them in building that and say, this is what we need, that would be where I would prefer that we Hyperledger go. Yeah, I completely agree. And when we do create this task force, I would look to heart, Ry, yourselves to bring in whoever the right people are from LFX to have these discussions directly with us, right? To say, yes, this is possible or no, this isn't possible and help us through that process. I will gladly harangue them. All right, Angela. Just out of curiosity, maybe this has been done already by other foundations. I don't know, the Apache foundation is much older than Hyperlitter. Do you know, any of you know if this has been already done, if they have already predictors? I found interesting this idea of predictors of the success of a project. I doubt they exist, but it would be interesting to see if it's possible to derive such predictors. Part? So Angela, to my knowledge, this has not been done before. Maybe, you know, somebody can correct me on this because it's entirely possible it has been done and I just don't know about it. But to my knowledge, the most, like no one has applied, you know, modern machine learning to this or anything like that. To my knowledge, sort of the most, I guess advanced tooling around this has historically been done by the CNCF and LFX is trying to pull a lot of that stuff in. And that has sort of become some of the LFX tools. But, you know, we should probably interact more closely with LFX. And maybe, you know, I know Rye has a lot more experience with talking to these folks than I do. But maybe we should set up some kind of LFX hyper ledger meeting where we let, you know, maintainers and TSC members and everybody discuss. Rye, do you think that would be something that LFX would agree to? I can ask, I know that we've had them on the TSC call before for that. And I can ask them, let's see if we can make it happen. Yeah, I think the key is, we don't want a presentation, we don't want a discussion. Right, we want to discuss what's the, or not the possible to get to the place where we understand, you know, health of projects and predictors, if you will, as Angela thought, to help them. Jim? Yep, to further answer Angela's question and add to what Hart said. Angela, you might be astonished that I actually seek out to read some papers on the subject. The chat is disabled, but I would send a link to the group. There was this, the latest published paper on the subject was sometime in 2021. And the conclusion was, so the author of the paper looked at 56 other published papers on the topic. The conclusion is there's not a good methodology behind this very important topic. And some of this high level dimensions were taken from the content of that paper. So yeah, like Hart said, there's not a good solution to this, especially considering the tools available with machine learning and natural language processing all that were sort of blazing some new trials here. All right, thanks Jim. Yeah, definitely post a link for everyone to take a look and read in the TSC channel and we can all come up to speed with where you're at. All right, any other comments or questions on this at this point? All right, I highly encourage for those of you who haven't been participating in this issue to have a look, take in and read and add your thoughts to this. We only get the right thing if everybody has a chance to contribute their thoughts and make this a better thing for all of us. All right, so with that, there's nothing else on the agenda. Is there any other things that anybody would like to bring up before we close the meeting? All right, I'll take that as an O, I see no hands, I see nobody coming off mute. So thank you all for joining and participating in the discussion. Looks like we have a few offline discussion items for us to go and provide our thoughts and feedback on. So please do that as well as if you haven't had a chance to take a look at the project reports yet, please take the time here that you have the short amount of time to at least get through one of them. And with that, we will talk to you again next week.