 Okay, welcome everybody to the June 22nd hyperledger technical oversight committee call. As I believe everybody on the call has been here before you are aware that we have two things that we must divide by. The first is the anti trust policy that is currently displayed on the screen. And the second is our code of conduct which is linked in the agenda. So, for announcements today we have the hyperledger dev weekly developer newsletter that goes out each Friday if you do have anything that you want to include in that newsletter. Please do leave a comment on the wiki page that it's linked in the agenda. I also had a comment in here to have you review the encourage projects to set annual goals. There's been a few of us that have reviewed that or no I did see your message about not merging this until we merge 123, which we will be discussing today. So, I think you know there's still a few folks that need to review the encourage projects to set annual goals but we did talk about it last week and I think everybody was on board with it so just to give your thumbs up on GitHub itself. We've also got a workshop that is coming up on July 11. For the hyperledger areas framework JavaScript release. So how you set up an agent and issue credentials is the topic there so if you are interested please do click on the link there in the agenda for any additional details on how to attend that workshop. Any other announcements that anybody would like to make. So then the next thing that we have on the agenda or quarterly reports, we did get the cello report to come in this week. I did see a few comments on there are no I think I also read your comment on that one this morning. I think that they actually did do the release but yet they in the current kind of where the last quarter plans they they commented that they were working on it. I was also confused by that. As I read it so I think I convinced myself that it was correct but we'll see what the cello folks have to say about that but I don't think it is out in fact I looked at the repo and the change log. It says 0.9 I think or something like this so it doesn't talk about the one zero. I was like, okay, I wasn't sure how to figure it out but well there it is. So the change log file I guess is not up to date. Yeah okay so it is confusing. Yeah, at least we can redo that. I also read it and I was like wait, what you said you released it how can you be working on it. So I'm, yeah, I definitely had to convince myself that that was what it seems to be two versions in fact there is two one zero versions there is the one zero where I guess they froze the code. There is the one zero GA. I think that's where it becomes confusing but see prepare for the one zero GA. Yeah, so the this is labeled as pre release. The GA is pre release from November, and then one zero came out. Okay, so one zero is more recent okay so. Yeah, so the report is needs a bit of fixing. Yeah, yeah. Thanks. We'll try and get that updated. Were there any other comments that anybody had on the cello report that we should talk about. Okay. So we don't have any past due reports. We are expecting to get the base due and the caliber report today. So we should be able to hopefully have those on the agenda for next week. We're still waiting for some answers to some questions and I did see some grammar changes as well being reflected there so we'll wait to get that one merged into the repo until we get those answers back. Any questions on the reports. For discussion today. We do have the annual review policy I did make some changes based on our conversation last week that are listed in the agenda here. I think there's just a few outstanding questions. The first is the timeline. I did see on the poll that seven folks had selected that they would like it to be within a single quarter so I did make that change yesterday. You can see in the timeline that first sentence is the annual reviews will replace the Q one quarterly report. So just wanted to talk about that make sure everybody was okay and if there were any concerns there because I know not everybody had a chance to vote on the timeline. Pull that was out there. Okay. There's no concerns there. I think the second open item was the number of folks that need to be responsible. So the number of responsible TLC members Rama I think you had suggested that we have at least two people who are responsible. So I wanted to see I couldn't remember last week. If we had come to any sort of decision on whether or not it would make sense to have to corroborating opinions. My biggest concern with having two people responsible is that if two people are responsible, nobody's responsible. And so I want to make sure that we definitely have, you know, at least one person that we can go to to have, you know, responsible for the reviews but if we do think we need a backup or a second person to, you know, help gather any sort of information. That's fine. But wanted to talk about that with the TOC and see what thoughts were. Peter. We could mark one of them as primary and the other one is backup secondary or observer, or any other label, in my opinion. Okay, so you're in favor of to then Peter. Yes, but I also agree with what you said is that if it's not a single person responsible then no one's responsible. Yeah. Okay. Marcus. I also like having two people responsible here and maybe not as a primary and secondary but more like a good cop and bad cop position. I know I'm just joking. No, I think it's nice to have two people. I'm just, I'm smiling here with a good cop bad cop. I think that's an interesting, an interesting idea I don't know that I'm, I think I feel like I'm labeled as a bad cop anyway so, but I maybe I don't want to be labeled as bad cop so let's, let's maybe not label ourselves as bad cop circuit cops because that might end up being a concern for folks but I think it's, it's amusing to me. I like it, but I don't like it. So right. I guess my question is what level of staff involvement. Do you want, which is to say how much do you want me to get involved. If at all. Is this something should the staff have a role in this, possibly as the bad cop possibly as a mediator, or just do it as the currently, as it's done currently with the quarterly reports. I ask primarily around the saw, you know the turbulence that I created around the sawtooth report. So right, I think, as far as staff involvement in the actual reviews, the thing that I think we can take and use as the work that you've done to really gather some analytics around when main heiners have been last contributing or those sorts of things so I think that the data gathering is a thing that you already do and that we could utilize. So I guess for me, you know, I would like to continue to have you run those or to utilize that data. That's, I think my thought on staff involvement but and obviously the other pieces that are defined currently in the document which is to send out the notifications of the information that's due that the report is due. I think is the one piece that I have in there. And then the timeline I think is the second piece that I have staff responsibility for. Okay, I'm just quickly for everyone that's not aware. I run this script every day, and it tracks. You know, I can see like everything that this GitHub user has ever done. In terms of GitHub involvement, and then on each repo, I have I can look and see what has Timo done for the last year and it gives me the dates of every activity for the project that the Timo has done. And I think that's one of the stats that I'm collecting. Yeah, any, any other things that the GSC thinks the staff would be helpful in providing with these annual reviews. Okay. So, right now I have at least two people who've given kind of a, or maybe it's three people I guess that have given the yes let's have more than one person. Assigned to these project annual reviews. Is there any other thoughts on that dissenting thoughts or if not I will make that change to reflect kind of that primary secondary. Whatever we decide we're going to call it in the annual review when I write it. Okay. So if we have no dissenting that's what I'll do I'll make that change to reflect that. The last thing that I did with Steven had recommended that we put together a template specifically for answering the questions about the content of the annual report so I did do that in the previous slide where I just put together a template and so I wanted to just take a look at that template and see if there's anything else that anybody is interested in making sure that we include in that template as we go forward. So, I don't know if you would mind bringing up the template in the pull request. The items that are listed here used to be in the content section of the PR. What I did is I just moved them to the template itself. So I'm going to take a look around the project health and including links to the LF insights page and, you know, providing commentary on what we're seeing in those insight pages as far as, you know, our do we see increasing or consistent with that that maintain our diversity which I think is important for us to really understand and dig into and think about a project adoption so do we do we know who's adopted the project do we understand if there's companies that are using the project or not. And then goals so for goals we have the performance against the prior goals. And we also have information about like the goals for the next year. So, if you wouldn't mind right just scrolling down in the template. Any sort of help that is required to meet the upcoming goals that that can be listed and then if the project has any changes that they would recommend for themselves as far as the life cycle states that they're in. So, you know, wanted to check in with the to see and see if they thought there was any other sorts of things that we should be asking of the projects as we look at the annual review, instead of the quarterly review. Stephen. One suggestion might be to try to be try to make this a little more factual so one thing we could do for example, scroll to the maintainers section. Request that they put a link in to the maintainers file from last year and the one from this year. And obviously the first year, you know, maybe we don't get that but but try to be try to tie it to actual like specific information then add commentary about it. Ask them to add commentary so link to last year's link to this year's comments about how many you have same with the goals because we want to encourage them to have we want to encourage all projects to have goals. And then a link to the goals from last year for the goals from this year and then commentary about it. And that would give us that combination of, you know, acts as well as discussion about those facts. So of course people to have a maintainer diversity file or sorry, a maintainers file and to keep it up to date. Okay. Thanks Stephen you were breaking up there at the end a bit but I think I did get it all. Unless it's me that's breaking up, but we'll see if Marcus will clarify who was breaking up. It's not you it's me. Okay, yeah, that's fine. I think we got it all though Stephen. You're up Marcus. Yeah one thought I have here I mean the term. First of all, I like this template a lot I think that's good starting point. So when I think about the goals I mean the term goal sounds like a commitment and I think this is also the intention here which is good. But I believe, I mean we as a to see we would also maybe acquire some knowledge about other future work items or directions where a good project or the maintainers might think of, but they don't at this point want to commit to those directions as a goal because the goal is then maybe evaluated at some point and then we see hey, did they shift all the goals. But I mean if we have like an optional subsection of goals like future direction where they can put things they would like to explore in the future, without giving a strong commitment on certain things. That would be one thing I think would be interesting as well. Okay. Thanks for that Marcus Dave. Yeah, to follow on from what Stephen was saying kind of related to that for the maintainer diversity would also make sense to make sure that the maintainers files were up to date. And anybody that needs to be retired is retired so it's sometimes awkward to go to retire your, your colleagues on a project. And the annual review is a good force point to make that happen. And for maybe the TOC lead to be the bad cop in this case, and to make sure that the maintainers are all active and everything is healthy there. Yeah, I completely agree. Dave, I think it's important that we, we do point out where we've got issues with maintainer files that haven't retired particular maintainers that haven't contributed in the past year, or six months or whatever that number is that we we decide is important. So I can add some information there about just reminding people that they should be retiring their maintainers that are having been active. So this is in continuation to the goals and the future scope kind of discussion. I'm just out of sharing my opinion. I think it's okay to have goals set for instance goals are something that we want to achieve like said, measured way of saying, Hey, by the end of this year maybe we want. We want to achieve, let's say, a new major release for the project. And we would like this project to have adoption because of these major capabilities that we want to introduce. And I think it's okay to have diversion from the goals, if at all project wants to have in between the year, because of maybe changing priorities or due to, let's say the new set of maintainers coming and then they propose new set of features to work on. And then they decide, Hey, maybe our initial goals for not accurate, maybe we want to pivot it out. And we could provide an option in two ways. So there can be an. Add in them to the goals or maybe like an amendment to it as in when like maintainers decide to do it. Or the other option could be during annual review, the team who's a member who's responsible, they will be working with the project team and they will make sure this is communicated well, and I'm sure the project must have had done something in response. In something other than what they have already promised. And then you can definitely consider that something else as in response to the goals and then the amendments if any to the goals can be added later during the review process. Or it could be described in the annual review saying that we started with this and then during midpoint we decided to pivot it out like this. And then here we are at the end of year with these things in that can be a good thing to mention in the annual report as well. Yeah, yep. I do have the parenthetical there against the performance against prior goals that says we won't penalize you if your goals change for good reasons. Maybe I'll clarify that a bit more just to reflect a couple of things right like, I think it's also okay if you don't meet your goals, if you've made some progress towards those goals, right like, maybe you're 75% of the way towards the goal that you set at the beginning of the year. That's okay too right like you were you were working towards it and it just didn't happen within the year or or things like you said changed in some way and so that one maybe got be prioritized a bit. You know I think there's there's definitely reasons for goals to change and we have to be cognizant of that but I do also think that it's worth mentioning right a bit more in the instructions that you know, let us know what they were and let us know if you changed them and that sort of thing and just the commentary right I mean we're looking for information about what's happening with the project and whether or not they seem to be on track and in some way shape or form. So, part. Hey, thanks Tracy. So, I really agree with your last point there. And I think we should probably try to emphasize that you know projects will not be punished if they're you know doing good work, even if they sort of don't meet their goals. I worry that if we, if, if things even look a little bit punitive like if people are sort of afraid to not meet their goals they might set like overly conservative and goals. That are basically, you know, not really what they want to achieve but what they're sure they can achieve, if that makes sense. You know, and we'd probably like projects to list what they want to achieve not, you know what they're sure they can achieve the next year. So, you know, as you suggested making that language. You know, very non punitive I think is important, because that will give the TS that will encourage and incentivize projects to give the TSC the most accurate impression of what they want to do. Yep. Yep. And make some, some verbates changes there to reflect that. I think maybe even removing the word penalize. Right, like that implies that we were planning on penalizing somebody for something. So I'll work on just the phrasing there and, and trying really help people understand the importance of the annual views and what we're looking for right this is really a, let's see what you're, you're looking to accomplish. Let's see what you have accomplished. And, and, you know, I think it's, I think it's just important for us to be able to understand where projects are at. Okay, any other comments or thoughts to improve this change it. Okay, I will make the changes that we have discussed then for the annual review and the annual review template to get those changes in place. And move this from a draft PR to a to a non draft PR. And then we can review it that way. And maybe have a vote on it next week, if we're ready for that. Yeah, so that that's it for the annual review then I think now we're up to the task force discussions. I think it's up to you to take us through the rest of the meeting. Well then it's going to be a short one. All right, let me just some of what's going on with the two task force I'll start with the documentation task force. Due to the overwhelming applications to the mentorship program we have a great team going into the summer working with us. I'll call right now she's my mentee. So what we plan on doing is for right now I'm going to say suspend the task force reports to the TOC for the summer. So that we can meet our goals which is we have five areas we're working on one is the GitHub which Tracy you know how that's going trying to get that to prompt approach, a good template for new projects and some documents from the GitHub repos that are consistent with the look and feel of hyper ledger. So those are the two things for that we're working on getting some templates out there for people with the new look and feel and the new branding to support any kind of creativity they want to make that that easy for them to just put their knowledge down and not have to worry about the formatting or any of that kind of stuff. We're also working closely with the onboarding task force which, again, is a combined effort. So there are a lot of changes happening with the new website and the new branding so that are helping that piece is kind of slowed down until that happens. There are other spots where people come into the community like the discord and all those other places and we're trying to make it. Ben has defined four personas that come into hyper ledger we're trying to make it so those four personas, wherever they come in, can get to where they go, where they need to be and there's user guides and documentation support for them in all of those projects that they come in. And then with the best practices I know that that task force has had a documentation piece which our subcommittee is looking at their findings. And I know in our last meeting we kind of talked about how that's going to work into a badging process so we're on. We want to work with that as well. Another piece is the mentorship programs all have a documentation piece so we've sent out some members of our team. Well we were, we had a presence at the initial meeting offering our support, and some of our teammates have made associations with some of the lab projects, as well as some of the incubated and graduated projects to offer our documentation support. And basically what the task force wants to do in the summer is work on those things to get them down and so we can present them to you. The task force at the end of the summer, but I do think that the group wants to present what I just summed very quickly to the task force in a week or two with more specifics. And then we'll coincide again with the onboarding in a week or two. So that, let's say, in two weeks, the task force will present to the TOC exactly what our goals are for those topics I mentioned, and then we'll be on our way in the summer to So that's it for the two tasks force hopefully will be on the agenda in two weeks for a more formal goal setting with no punitive damages if we don't meet them kind of thing. Okay. And that that's going to be specifically in the task force meeting itself, if you will, right. The one that happens on Monday. Yes, correct. Those meetings will still stay every Monday and we're going to offer support to again we're going to try to hit every project. And every lab that needs document to support to offer that to see what it looks like so they have a contact person on the task force in case they get stuck with their documentation. Okay, great. Any questions for Bobby. So, next week I am on holiday. I will not be here. Arun, I believe is going to to run the meeting next week. So I think the item on the agenda for next week is the security task force which we had put off for this week. Meeting with the open SSF. So just want to confirm that the security task force will be ready to present next week. Right Tracy there is open SSF meet meeting next Wednesday will understand more after that meeting. The other agenda item that I could think of was last week there were asks and creating the templates for the annual goal setting that could be another topic. So we'll get started with the PR and we'll have those discussions with you. Okay, sounds great. Anything else that anybody would like to make sure is on the agenda for us to. All right, so if you do come up with anything. I definitely bring it in the to chat or finger room. He'll be walking through the agenda next week, and I will see you I guess in a couple of weeks. And unless there's anything else we will conclude the call but is there anything else before we do that. I'll just say out loud what I said on discord I've invited all the to see members to the private repo where I keep all the get up statistics. So, comments questions are. Enjoyed. You know, please help. All right, great. Thanks for that. All right, so we will talk to you. Some of you will talk again next week and I will definitely talk to you in two weeks time. Great. Great week.