 let's get let's get rolling all right so on today's agenda good morning good evening good afternoon everyone today's agenda we have the usual hackfest planning and I'd like to do a bit of a retrospective on the LA hackfest to see what people thought and and and and we can use that to sort of have a discussion around maybe the cadence that we have for these events and so forth Todd has got an update on the internship program we actually have received a number we actually received more proposals than we had spots which is a good thing and I think they've narrowed down the the final set so we'll review that briefly and then Dave is gonna ask us to approve publishing the Saw 2 security report I think there was just one change that needs to be done but Dave can update us on that then we have two updates one from a working group the architecture working group that's the first of the workgroup updates it will be entertaining and then the Seramo will give us that one and then we have the indie update hopefully any other items for the agenda actually I did have one I'll have to think of it yeah anyway so let's let's get moving them with the hackfest so I'd like to start by just sort of getting people's impressions of the LA hackfest if you were attending if you didn't attend and you want to share maybe why you didn't or couldn't you know was it a conflict was it I hate LA or you know whatever it might have been I think that would be maybe a little bit useful but you know art you know I think you know the the the quit so so let me just sort of give my own personal perspective here I thought that day zero was actually pretty good it could have been better you know the attendance was fairly good and but we didn't have somebody from every one of the projects and so that was a little disappointing because some of the projects we didn't get to sort of provide a one-on-one for and and then but then day two there was a few less people I think some of the noobs that were probably you know maybe from the university or or what have you decided to attend class instead and then and I think that the the high school kids that we had in attendance they didn't show up for day two or day three if I'm not mistaken and and then day three was actually even less well attended which again fairly disappointing I know some people had to run off I know Brian had to run off Mick had to run off they all had previous engagements but you know again it wasn't as good as I might have hoped to be honest I was actually hoping that we'd have a few more people and gay it engaged enough after the day zero that they could participate at least from a auditing perspective some of the conversations we were having deeper going into you know integrating indie and sawtooth and fabric and burrow and so forth so I don't know what others thought but that you know that's my that's my sort of my feedback on last week's event again I'm not sure that I can this I'm not sure I understand why it was so poorly attended so hi this is all no if I may add so I wasn't at the zero but I was at D1 and 2 and I share the feeling it seems to have fairly low attendance and low energy overall not to say that there was any useful you know an interesting discussions here and there but overall it seems like fairly low energy but my question you know it's like what I find more interesting to ask is you know is that a one-off it just happened that you know circumstances were such that we had very few people showing up or is it because there is like too many of those meetings and people are getting tired of them and then we are just starting on the trend like this that would be my concern thanks Arnav anyone else yeah I had similar but but in some ways different perspectives so I'll come at it from a different direction what we set out to do was was have that day zero be sort of getting people started who are unfamiliar with the projects and then intend that days two and three be in some ways deeper whether it's project project collaboration or we're trying to take the new people into deeper content and it kind of felt like for the people that that were interested in hanging around through all three days that were new to hyper ledger the the day zero content kind of has to stretch through all of those days and so the notion that we could just do the intro material on day one and then proceed to other things kind of ignores the fact that people will still be in that novice phase for you know probably a while when they first get involved in the projects now on the other hand I think that we did have some good discussions on on day two and day three that were more in that that inter-project collaboration with people that are in the long-term hyper ledger contributors so I felt like that was productive but definitely by by day three afternoon it was it was a skeletal crew so day three after about one o'clock was a bit of a go-down actually yeah yeah I would be in favor of keeping these to maybe two day events and in trying to stay focused try to try to get everybody's commitment to be there solidly through through two days instead of kind of two and a half days but if we're gonna do that it seems to me that we need to choose is this going to be a roadshow where we try and get local people in you know up to speed on what hyper ledger is all about how you know it's an umbrella project understanding you know what the various projects are all about and then spending the other day diving a little bit deeper but again it's just a roadshow right versus again the thing that seems to me to be always at the expense of helping to get new people on board is any kind of cross-project you know discussions or or you know having you know a project able to sort of get to discussions around proposals for new features and so forth that seems to me to be we aren't giving ourselves enough opportunity for that I think and then everybody goes back home and then they focus on their own thing and you know that that's you know for me that that is one of the areas that I think we need the most how do we get these projects to work a little bit more collaboratively how do we get people to you know start looking a little bit more closely at what else is is around you know what other capabilities there are in sawtooth or burrow or or what have you and how they may relate or apply and how they might be integrated into or you know replace features of another project so that that you know because I think at the end of the day that's really what this whole thing is supposed to be about and we're just not giving ourselves an opportunity to really do that effectively so I would second that Chris on fact one of the things Rahm and I were talking about the architecture working group report last night and that you know that the phone meetings of you know every other week it's hard to make progress on the papers but we sit down at the HackFest for four or five hours and we were able to crank out almost all of the road the smart contracts work and a big chunk of the identity work we were able to put together a substantial portion of the crypto library proposal I mean it in a sense I would go the other extreme from what Dan was saying which is make smaller numbers of meetings and make them longer if I can invest in the travel time to get down there generally I'd rather hang around and just get the work done and cut down the total number of meetings yeah so I would yeah just add on to that you know I thought this meeting even though you have from a general perspective you know attendance seemed to be low from the architecture work group meetings it was very productive we had a course of people who are physically there and we could just bang bang stuff out in one solid session which worked out pretty well so we just and I think well it's maybe a little bit more structured around what we intend to accomplish and have that communicated up front would kind of help in in making it more productive working session in addition to the road to aspect yeah no I'm not saying that there wasn't good I mean I had some great conversations and I think make just as you're describing you know you know we had I think you know you mean Gary had a great conversation we had you know from a fabric perspective we have people together that aren't always together and we had some I think some really good conversations got to focus a little bit more on the borough and fabric integration work that's ongoing and thinking through you know some of those issues it was it was good face time to really dive a little bit deeper on you know and again that's that's just me that's just the conversations I have and I know others had similarly deep conversations with you know day zero was was good and there was a little bit follow-up as Dan described but there again it just wasn't as well attended by the regulators and I think we suffer a little bit because of that so and you know I think if we're gonna do a road show we don't necessarily need everybody there we just need to have somebody from each project there maybe to and somebody to help for each of those projects so that we can spend that time with noobs so maybe these are really different things that we have a face-to-face of the hyperledger effort and we have noob day in various cities I don't know I'm just I'm struggling because I tend to think that we're starting to lose a little bit of energy here and I'm concerned about that yeah Chris I think the go ahead I was saying that that's a great idea in order to have the working sessions choosing locations which are friendly for the core attendees we want to be there and having working sessions probably works better than spreading them around the world where we have to travel so maybe we maybe it helps to have them co-located occasionally but on a regular basis maybe we should be a targeting real work getting done and active working sessions which make that the focus of the face-to-face meetings yeah so I agree with you Ram and I think Chris your idea of splitting kind of hackfests and road shows is a great idea you know I think maybe if we have a handful of hackfests in locations where we have lots of developers and we know people will show up and we can get a lot of work done and we we may want to consider splitting those off from our evangelism efforts because fundamentally what we've been trying to do with the hackfest is two things we've been trying to bring new people on board and sort of show them the ropes and we've also been trying to you know get worked on do project integration things like that and these two goals are you know pretty orthogonal so so you're you're right it might be best to just split things off and have you know core meetings where you know everyone can show up everyone can get things done and then have you know road tours where people can do more evangelism as long as the core meetings done it all end up happening just in the United States you know as long as they also reflect the same geographic diversity of not just the existing TSC members but but the developers that we know are out there which to me still says rotating between you know North America Europe and Asia on a pretty frequent basis I mean it should reflect the diversity of you know developers that we want otherwise people will feel like they have to travel to the US to work to become a maintainer on hyperlegia and that would be an unfortunate impression so Brian I think we discussed this and we were thinking if we did something like a rotation of like four of these hackfests a year and we did like you know Shanghai Hong Kong Beijing Tokyo one of those then San Francisco then New York and then like London or Amsterdam we would cover kind of the geographic diversities I think that makes sense so we're basically saying no more day zeros because that's closer to what the two-day hackfests I think we're meant to be and then four rather than six per year well yeah except that I do think then that maybe we work with Greg and Dan and yourself and you know the speakers bureau if you will and get a road show kind of a thing that would not conflict obviously with you know yeah well and I think what we could do is better connect to the speakers bureau that's developing with the meetup community and then do things like organize a tour if somebody wants to put together a string of meetup appearances in in India for example you know if I could talk heart into going out if he's interested or wants a junk it through India for example we could easily figure out some way to have a you know reach out to the Indian meetup community and have him show up at a string of meetups for the course of a week or 10 days or something I mean at maturity right look like that there's a lot of work to do between here and there but but that would be great and probably even you know less resource intensive than than a that a road show kind of concept but and in essence Tracy does some of this now and I anticipate other community architects as we hire them will do some of this outreach and training but the more the merrier and the more of you that we can involve in that that would be great so yeah yeah I like the idea of kind of cutting the the marketing stuff out of the hack vests at least for one or two hack vests yeah that goes I know that the part that I found most valuable out of LA was time spent with Sean and Nate and heart and and and so forth going through the crypto proposal and what we could do at the consensus layers between a couple of the projects there and that was really productive definitely more so than than some of the day zero stuff yeah of course I was not there because of the holidays sorry for that and personally I think the 3d hack vests might be a little bit too long I guess 2d 1a should be better and more efficient I always know but why I always feel that two days is never enough but but based on the feedback around these LA had effects that you know that the zero the present most of the people yeah how the day to actually there are a few of the people right and then you know again if I'm going to go to China I'm not going for two days right I did Singapore for two days and oh my god I nearly killed myself I understand and I but yeah I understand and you're coming from the other direction but you know I think if we're going to for instance if we were going to be able to give ourselves an opportunity for instance for us to have work group meetings like architecture and identity and white paper and so forth and give people also an opportunity to participate where maybe they don't always have that opportunity then you need more time and less tracks right you know obviously we can you know you'd still have discussions cross-project and so forth but I would think that you know one of the things that we sort of cut out was the work group meetings because then we couldn't do anything else because everybody wanted to be in a working group meeting but we only had two days and so we're squeezing in things and and as a result I think we lost participation of people that are primarily participating in working groups and and because now they didn't have an opportunity to you know to really get together so I you know my my my thought was maybe we have you know working group day and you know everybody gets a couple of hours kind of a thing try not to have too much overlap and then you know maybe two days for the other kinds of conversations I don't know I mean I'm just throw this out yes one one so we've typically run these as very much an unconference where that be very organic and maybe some of the feedback is that if we were a little more directive or structured in how we run the two days that might help motivate people to come and help people feel like the time that they spent there was focused and well spent so maybe a bit of the message is you know spending more time on these calls or on the TSC mailing list reiterating the need for you know developing a structured schedule it can still be organic but but more more ahead of time rather than just the day you show up like we've we've tended to remain second we could divide those two days between on the first day focusing on cross project kinds of things so getting you know conversations like you know between that happened between sawtooth and indy for example or the working group so let's talk about architecture as it spans across these projects and and I'm really hoping we have a lot of overlap between the people working in the working groups and people working on code because one supposed to be the way that we get matrixed you know interaction yes then the second day can be you know as a as a as a fabric team as an indie team you know heads down hacking you know and back and forth and and yeah going through new proposals and yeah I think I think it's important to try to stick to the IETF kind of model of saying you know let's make sure that the face-to-face meetings are about making progress on things and having high bandwidth conversations that might otherwise happen on the list but making sure that it's not where the decisions are made that exclude the people who couldn't travel to those meetings. Okay well we've spent 25 minutes on this and I you know we do have other things to discuss I I think you know and maybe we should have you know follow-on discussion after people have given a little bit of thought and maybe ask some ideas Brian I think I like the idea of having a project day where you know the sawtooth crowd and the fabric crowd and the burrow crowd can all get together and and do their thing and then another day that's focused on the more cross-project kind of stuff whether it's working groups or otherwise I think that's I think that's good and then so anyway so let's let's let's pick that up Todd did you have any other I know one of the things I had asked Todd was maybe we should have a poll on who's thinking of going to Dubai just you know my own yeah suggested that wasn't gonna be very well attended yeah yeah it might be a good idea I don't foresee being able to make that myself I can't maybe you can do that on the channel and Bartle yeah cool yeah I mean my sense from talking with other folks on day three in LA was that it was gonna be a challenge to get out there yeah and I see quite a few more of the the more seasoned folks saying the same thing yeah and then with our nose separate comment previously just about the European Labor Day I believe it was makes it a bit challenging as well yes so my sense is that we should probably not move forward with Dubai and then if we're doing quarterly then June you know that's Q2 so I think the question then becomes you know and we can discuss this over the mailing list or next week but do we look at doing Asia in the roughly April timeframe mid April something like that and then move to Europe and then North America towards end of the year so but we can yeah we can we can we can take that to the discussion although again I've said April was out for me I can't travel okay unless everyone asked him here that's always possible do a hackfest in Florida yeah we should probably move on when the agenda to keep pace here yeah all right so mentor program or inter internship program I should say yep so thank you everyone that submitted to that we have 12 slots for mentors and interns we received 18 proposals so it's actually a pretty straightforward process for selection this time three of the three of the proposals we received were really focused on companies proprietary products as opposed to actually working on the hyper ledger technology so we do prioritize those that left us with 15 proposals of those three folks had requested two interns each so we thought we'd offer each of them one and so then that brings us down to 12 the other remaining nine proposals were excellent projects for interns to work on so what the list looks like is basically as follows it went out with the agenda as well so the first nine met the bar of what we're looking for the three following that the three folks that propose to be mentors will we'll let them select one of the two projects that they put in there or in some of those cases they may be able to merge that into one single intern project and then like I said there were several that were just focused on more product as opposed to hyper ledger technology so from our view this was pretty straightforward this time no major red flags and just wanted to check with this group and call for any objections to moving forward with these as the mentors and opening the application project process for students personally I think it's a great list I agree looks good yeah thanks Todd cool sounds good we will get this posted and then susan thank you all okay all right Dave who's be you on yep can you guys hear me Ken yeah great so as part of the sawtooth 1.0 we went through the same checklist as we did for fabric 1.0 and that included a security audit executed by netitude now they were at the hackfest in LA to report out and answer questions and they have performed they have prepared a technical report from the audit and I would like to publish it along with the bog post like we did with the fabric one so I have sent this out to a few of the TSC members who requested it received some feedback I think the only change we've requested is that the report reflects the current status of the findings you know the issues that were found all of the medium and high ones were addressed before 1.0 the other ones are being addressed either as part of architectural changes or they've been deemed like non you know non critical issues that could be fixed maybe even good first bugs actually so so yeah I'm just asking the TSC for a quick vote on approval of the of the publishing of the report and there were I think there were two reports that you sent me one was like a business report the other was a technical report and it's just a business or just a technical one that that would be sent out actually I think we've published both of them for fabric as well why was there something with the management report that one it was just in present tense so for example you can get the private key off of a sawtooth node okay it's kind of how that's phrased so just just the same comment as the other thing so it's in the context of yeah this was in audit ahead of a 1.0 yeah okay so the plan I was to publish this with a blog post to give it context and then when I put it into our wiki I can make notes in the wiki saying that the you know these were produced on this date so things have changed since then you know and yeah that's my call out specifics like you know all of the issues have been fixed that kind of thing so yeah rather than go back to netitude and have them rewrite it I'd rather do it that way yeah that's fine okay so how do you run a cold yeah we can just do we can just do a quick vote so from the TS to see members all in favor say aye aye hi hi any abstaining any opposed all right that passes unanimously thank you all right thank you guys thanks thank you Dave so it'll probably go out in the next week or so I have to work in inches because Blog schedule, so I'll send a note out to the TSC once we know where to where to land or when in the land Architecture working room. You're up. All right. Thank you. So I'm put out the the Update on the wiki I don't know if you guys I got a chance to put it up, but can you put it up Todd? Something Yeah, yeah, I just dropped it into the TSC chat Okay, awesome So quick overall Update on the health of the group. We've been making steady but slow progress on several work items We are very close to Finishing up the second in a series of papers is a quick reminder. We released the first Article on the architecture the consensus paper back in August the second one that we are working on and almost done on Focused on the smart contract layer if you will and that should be really soon We have the regular track which is now working on the identity services functions if you will and That's going well. We made after Languishing for for quite a while. We've made significant progress on it on the face-to-face in LA so we're doing good progress on that and Mick has been driving the privacy and confidentially tracked that got started late last year and That's been going well as well Overall participation has been kind of steady 8 to 12 Participants show up for our telecom bi-weekly teleconference meetings for these two tracks the main track focused on The main architecture work on the second one being on privacy and confidentiality. So right now the alternate meetings No major issues I would say The main concern for me is that progress tends to be Slower than what you'd like because it seems most of the you know Getting work done outside of the meetings on the working sessions is based on how much time people can dedicate to contributing to it. So That's been a bit of a challenge. So need to more to encourage more active contribution and widen the net as well We have the core group of participants We've lost lost some of the active participation Over time some new folks have joined which is great, but we'd like to You know, maybe get some of your help and recruiting more Active contributors from your respective companies and projects So I think I've had a conversation with Chris and Arnaud saying hey, you know, it'd be great There's more active participation from IBM on fabric and Of course other projects like you know how we don't get participation at all and The you know time zones probably don't help but that's been a challenge Any thoughts questions on that? Yeah, that's interesting to hear Particularly that note on Roja it seems that they've been having difficulty contributing with Participating with the rest of the broader hyperledger community Little off-topic from your report. So I don't need to delve into that would be nice if there's something that you can do to get them more engaged Generally from from your your workgroups participation Brian had made a comment earlier about sort of taking note of the the contributors who are people on Contributing code as well as people who are contributing to the design thinking like this How would you characterize the the mix of your participants from from the active ones? I would say we traditionally have had The architects from the different projects participating. So I would assume that they have Good good view on what's going on In the projects and that they are involved in the code as well But you know, it will be great if we can get the active Folks who are doing the active design and the projects more involved Then they are now and I guess it's a matter of bandwidth as well, but that would be nice Okay, thanks Going on The You know, like I said, we have By weekly calls we capture all the information and most of the work happens on these teleconferences And we do have working sessions that are we put together The last few face-to-face is I guess the thought was to focus on both more of the coding stuff So we didn't have the session this LA face-to-face You know, we we had the work group meetings and that worked out very well. It was very productive so we need I like the discussion that we were having having earlier to kind of Splitting this out so that we can focus on having some dedicated time for the cross-project discussions and Time carved out for the working group activities. I think Having a little bit of structure around what we expect to get done during these working sessions Kind of helps and making sure that we those are quite productive. So You know so You know given that we those sessions are more productive maybe outside of the full face-to-face meetings we need to explore whether there are opportunities for Working sessions whether they are virtual or face-to-face Outside of even those to get more work done. So that's something that we'd like to explore Planned work products smart contract paper, hopefully matter a few weeks we're Making good progress on the other two to work items identity services and privacy and confidentiality and those would be That's about it anyone else from the architectural group make the heart Nathan you want to add anything to I Hey, round it. This is been from participation Especially from your old team. I assuming that you know most folks from your old team is from from Japan or somewhere in Asia and our meeting is at noon Eastern time. So I'm also struggle with at noon Eastern time as well So perhaps we could move it earlier. I know you in California. So it's much harder As well, so I'm not sure how we can accommodate their time zone, but at noon Eastern time means that it either You know midnight their time or 1 a.m. Their time. So it's very difficult Yes, maybe we We can reach out to them and see whether there's a time slot that will encourage their participation, but It'll be good to kind of You know, and if it does I'm ready to move it. Yeah So, I mean basically I There's no good time If you're gonna, you know, basically span the globe in terms of participation, there is just no good time the The least objectionable time for the most if you will typically tends to be around 9 a.m. Eastern 10 a.m. Is a little bit, you know late, but What I've done in the past again if I had especially if I have a heavy contingent in Asia that want to participate is to Rotate the time slot so for instance in the XML protocol working group We had, you know people around the globe that wanted to participate and we ended up, you know Doing, you know different times of the day to accommodate the Europeans the Asians the, you know the the US Time zones and You know, everybody pays a price, right? So, you know if If you're targeting, you know Europe and everybody in the east coast of the United States has to get and the west coast has to get up, you know before dawn and then if you're but then everybody else can can dial in at a reasonable time and then You know having it later in the day disadvantages typically the Asians So I don't know just a thought maybe rotate the time and everybody pays a price and then that way there's nobody that's advantage or disadvantage everybody's equal and disadvantage It's a good solution. Maybe we will try at least one meeting and actively solicit participation from Yeah, and then You know go back to what you're doing if it's working But that's that's one way of of trying it out. Yeah, I like the idea of experiment All right, thanks ron. Any other questions for ron? Okay Not not not a question, but this is um, john from talus just to reinforce what brine was saying a second ago Um, yeah, we we run teams. I have uh engineering research teams In in all three major continents and there is no better answer than simply rotating the calls if you have them Occasionally you have to have them a little bit more frequently than you'd like In order to avoid long-running mistakes or disagreements or whatever But if you just alternate the time zone to be Kind of awkward all the time for europe, but okay for for the us and asia That's that's the best we've ever managed in 20 years of trying to coordinate this kind of thing I don't think there's any other option and then just keep good notes so the guys who miss it can keep up Thanks Okay, any other questions? Thank you If not, thanks ron and we'll move on to indy and is nate. Who's doing the Thanks chris. This is sean bowen from the indy team. Uh, thanks tsc for having me. Um, I've just posted the indy update for February 2018 in the for the q1 2018 in the chat if anyone wants to look at it um, I'm not going to read the whole thing No one wants to listen to my voice that long, but um, so That's not true. That's not true. Yes. Well, I have a face for radio. Thank you for saying that um project health for hyperledger indy we are now 11 months in Um, since our acceptance our anniversary is march 30th 2018 we continue to gain more interest in developer support Our mailing list now has a lot more regular traffic and activity in all channels From commits chat mailing lists, etc We have not completed all the incubation tasks needed but stability is improving as the team pushes towards general availability In 28 in q1 2018 We've had a number of community members get more involved with updating and contributing to the documentation As well as improving the developer experience and we've also seen developer contributions in progress For a node.js wrapper for indy sdk, which we're super excited about as well as a community contribution for wallets and d i d off Thanks to a bounty program from the government of british columbia So we are very excited about contributors both in code as well as just interest as well as documentation and that group is growing So as I mentioned before we are continuing to work on improving documentation We have started an indy improvement initiative process In the indy rfc repository to capture and document architecture and design resources We have moved architecture discussions into our mailing list and we're really trying to focus rocket chat On q&a discussions. Hey, how does this work? Where can I find x we're trying to not necessarily split the communication But really prioritize the deeper threaded discussions in the mailing list Many issues with view change and catch up were made Um In the last few months. Sorry for the coconuts. Somebody's slacking me. Well, I'm on this call. I apologize There is more effort required to improve usability and verifiable claims Exchange use cases as well as the gaps in the indy agent. We're also very focused on getting back On track in regards to the incubation tasks that we are slightly behind on And we're working on that pretty diligently Overall in the last quarter, um, we moved the build process completely over to hyperledger jankins We've got unit testing and artifact testing improvements Our documentation has gotten better as I mentioned a couple times now From an indy node perspective node to node message validation has been completed We are working on multiple bug fixes and refactoring within the code base itself Upgrades the sovereign test network and sovereign live actually for folks who don't know sovereign is one of the initial instantiations of indy So we were able to see things in the you know We were able to make changes in the code base based on things that we're seeing from a performance or a scale perspective on the sovereign side Feeding that in really quickly and we're working on d id and verifiable claims improvements from an indy stk perspective Um, we've been working on stk wrappers for net. I just mentioned a community contribution for uh, node.js A non creds protocol enhancements have happened. Um As well as a new indy stk based cli and a new getting started guide Current plans. So as of february of 2017, we've revised the product roadmap For indy node and indy stk. We've begun. We've actually continued discussions since uh, portugal last year on the On the share crypto library and that work is continuing We've met in major stability updates and distributed key management is a key focus for key one as well as For all of indy as well as um revocation, which is a key focus for both indy stk as well as indy node the ledger itself From indy node perspective we're working on stability performance and revocation d id and verifiable claims from stk. We're working on The new cli and revocation as well And we're going to continue working on the shared crypto library and from a contributed diversity perspective We now have community members in finland Holland the uk the us canada and we've got as i mentioned before contributions coming out of The us as well as canada for a very specific functionality the community members need And we're working more closely with the community and trying to bring them more into both the roadmap and the sprint process And that is an ongoing Goal for 2018 which is just to be more open as an indy community And that is the fastest i've ever spoken on a conference call ever and i apologize if i went too quickly. Are there any questions? Any questions for jawn? nicely done jawn Oh, and uh, one thing nathan and i uh had a discussion earlier It going forward on these quarterly updates We're going to have one of the maintainers We're gonna they get a rotating group of maintainers so everyone gets the chance to present the tsc and talk about all the good work We've been up to so good Any questions comments concerns? It's in the wiki if you want to read it. Oh also at the bottom of our uh update. Um, i Do have a note about joining our mailing list and attending our working group calls which happened every thursday at 80 and pacific 90 and mountain 11 a.m eastern so You know if you want to find out more about indy that was my cheap plug for my team so Thanks guys All right. Well, we've got 10 minutes left And i still haven't remembered what it was that i wanted to bring up So while you think i just want to highlight that uh, i took advantage of the hackfest to work with tracy on the On the labs and so you guys remember we had a big discussion We agreed on the labs we had a document and basically when it came to making it operational He didn't say anything else then oh people will just submit a pull request and so We tried to figure out what it really meant and we have now documented Uh, the process it is a pull request. I'm happy to say so we're in line with what the plan was And mick offered to be a guinea pig I just saw that actually during this call somebody else submitted the first proposal And so while I don't necessarily want to have a flood of proposals right away because we still need to You know make sure that it works Uh, I do want to give a shout out to so that people know that you know, we are open for business That's outstanding. I don't know and um, you should get mine this afternoon Cool. Thank you. All right. Uh, call it a day then. Yeah, I think so. I was looking around. I know I Wanted to bring something forward that was sort of Feel quick from a technical perspective. Uh, I'll just send it to the mailing list. I don't think it needs a full Was it the copyright stuff? I don't think so. No, okay, um, but that's actually, um a good point It is a good point. We Good good catch Good catch dan, um So Yeah, so I was chatting a little bit with with mike on an email thread and then I'm hoping mike dolin That is I'm hoping he can put something more authoritative out to the mailing list. Um My understanding sort of the conversation with him is that uh copyright owner maintains the copyright on their original work That's when they put it into open source As soon as people start modifying it, it's very unclear who's copyright. So there's uh, I think it's a notices file Where a project can put the original copyright contributors Like a reference to them there, but I don't think it reads as a A copyright statement directly. Uh, and then The banner comes out of the file. Um, mike had said That It should be the the contributor who removes their own copyright banner Uh, but I maybe for that level of detail we can we can let him So post to the list and then he would be expecting that it all says linux foundation something something Yeah, when I looked at uh the apache ones, I don't recall I think there was no copyright header. Everything just went to the the apache license He won dan. Why don't I suggest that they recommend apache license doesn't cover copyright. So Dan from that thread. I think I think what's what is just needed is a Like a clarification of either existing policy and we can send something back out to the tsc Or if it's not, you know, if there's some still a policy question Then we can tee a proposal up for for this uh group to consider but uh, uh, I just there's a lot of context to it So I don't want to uh, I have too many people, uh, you know feel like they don't have the context for the conversation Right, right. Let me prepare. I was just trying to stall for chris again, but yeah Which is a little quicker. I think although if it spins into a longer conversation, we can continue next week, which is And I think we talked about this when we set up the the incubation process and kind of the standards for 1.0 Um, but do we expect a project to graduate from the incubator before it's allowed? That was it That's what I thought it took me a while to you to remember and then I was like, I know there's something Yes, and so we probably won't be able to get that done in six minutes, but maybe we should introduce the uh, the thought That was introduced that that it could leave incubation until what? It so so that it cannot make a 1.0 release before it leaves incubation before it graduates from the incubator That's a policy. Is that a desire or is that a hard and fast rule? And remember that um, when a project goes to 1.0 We spend real money to have a security audit and all that Right, so just to be clear, I don't I don't believe that in anything certainly nothing that I helped to author in terms of the bylaws or any of the Guidelines and so forth that we set up as far as the tsc Did we actually say that there was a prerequisite to go to one to to to graduate from incubation to go to 1.0? So I think it's then a question for the tsc to think through That if a project came forward and they're still in incubation, can they go to 1.0? Um And You know, what are the implications for that right and so, you know Is it a judgment call of the tsc that they look at maybe some of the reasons why the team? the project isn't out of incubation and you know, if there's a solid trend towards addressing it that that's okay, or you know, is it a hard requirement as brian said? And you know if they can't answer all the You know the criteria for incubation graduation You know do they stay in dot nine point nine point nine point, you know Until they can it's it's I think it's it's it's worth giving it some thoughts and I don't know we can have some initial five minutes worth of discussion here Well, why don't we plant the seed? Why don't we I'll follow up with an email to the tsc so we can get even folks not on the call And maybe tee it up as a topic for next week's agenda. Yeah Because there's not Yeah, go ahead. Sorry if I may interject it seems a bit odd because we spent so much effort into You know highlighting is tracing the fact that The lifecycle status was independent of the status of the software that is being produced It seems like going counter to this principle but I can't see from a communication point of view if nothing else why we would want to do that But I'm a bit reluctant because of that Yeah, I think I think we need to really decide whether like one zero is a big thing or not at the moment It is right. So if it is a big thing and it's a milestone that you reach and then after that We spend all money and do all stuff or other things. I don't know looking at the eyes or whatever it is Then we need to kind of have some barrier Well, it's even it is a big it is a big thing because we do coordinated marketing and all that stuff And yeah, so it's a marketing is the audit team As long as it signifies a big thing and it's a milestone then we need to decide You know, when can you reach that milestone? I think if you want to Notify some of these requirements then we can change it But at the moment it seems to me like it's the natural thing to to to get to maturity after After you're out of incubation If you if you go to all the you know the extended lengths of all the work that we are doing As part of the one zero you may as well just apply to graduate out of incubation that that's my take in in 60 seconds, I guess Yeah, my recollection of the history of the life cycle was that at least I didn't want to imply that a project that had a mature community meant that it had mature code but I think reversing that to say that a 1.0 project necessarily has a mature community is is maybe appropriate Just looking at the data points that we already have right. We have three projects and yeah Yeah, this is what we currently have at least The counter argument to this is if there's like some small project I mean not a dlt project because you there's you know that needs a community But if there's some small feature project that like one guy codes up Spends a lot of time maintaining Lots of people start using well. It never really has a community But if a lot of people are using it, you know, it might be But it might be one best a 1.0. I don't know Yeah, so I I tend to sort of Think that and you know Is pretty much along aligned with the thinking that I had I think um You know, it was clearly that the case that we didn't want to signal that Just graduating from incubation was and and I think that sentiment Shared was shared by many on the tsc at the time um That simply graduating from incubation necessarily meant the code was mature um that the 1.0 was the sort of signal for that And um, I don't know that It's necessarily the case that the code isn't mature If the team hasn't, you know gotten to a certain level of diversity or whatever, you know, um and um But I I do think that it's probably the right thing to do to sort of have us do a good hard think and Come back next week and we can have further discussion and make a make a call and and update The policy accordingly So with that, um or a minute passed Thank you everyone and Talk to you all next week. All right. It's chris Yeah That's no thanks. Bye everyone Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye